Jump to content

The Big Scary 'S' word: Why are people so terrified of socialism?


Recommended Posts

Lee Carter is a US Marine Corps veteran and Lyft driver. He is also a socialist. After he suffered a workplace injury, realised the system was broken and Googled “How do you run for office?”, he stood for election to the Virginia state assembly.

A campaign leaflet from his opponent displayed the faces of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong – and Carter, who told film-maker Yael Bridge: “It’s from another era entirely. I was born in ’87, I don’t remember the Berlin wall falling, so the ‘red scare’ – anybody who uses the big scary ‘s’ word is automatically Stalin – it just doesn’t work any more.”

Bridge took his observation for the title of her soon-to-be-released documentary, The Big Scary “S” Word, which tells how Carter beat the Republican incumbent to become the lone socialist in the Virginia state assembly (though after two terms he lost a primary re-election bid in June) and explores the unexpected history of the American socialist movement.

Her film makes a persuasive case that while America famously embraces capitalism red in tooth and claw, the emergence of the leftwing senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election was no anomaly but part of an equally proud tradition. Far from contradicting the US constitution, socialism has often been seen as furthering its ideals.

Bridge, based in Oakland, California, said by phone: “When you think about socialism, if you don’t just think about Russia or China or Cuba, people think about social democracies in Scandinavia. But we don’t need to look to all those other countries to find examples of socialism or success stories, so it was important to me to forefront those in the film.”

 

Few words are more loaded than socialism. It is defined by Merriam-Websteras “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”.

 

Misunderstandings about what socialism means are widespread in the United States. One young person in the film puts it: “It’s kind of like a more mediocre version of communism, I think?”

For Republicans it has become the ultimate trigger word, guaranteed to provoke a visceral recoil. Last year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, for example, was themed “America vs socialism” and included sessions such as “Socialism: Wrecker of Nations and Destroyer of Societies”. Senator Mike Lee told attendees: “They’re talking about having the government become your healthcare provider, your banker, your nanny, your watchdog. Having the government lie to you and spy on you.”

So it is remarkable when the origins of the Republican party are outlined by one of the film’s interviewees, John Nichols, author of The “S” Word, a history of American socialism. He argues that the ideology enjoyed a popular high in the United States in the 1840s, when a group of immigrants who settled in Ripon, Wisconsin, started to form a communal society in which wealth was shared. They built communal houses and argued for land redistribution so poor people could have farms.

The people of Ripon formed a new political party that would oppose the expansion of slavery. Nichols says: “When we talk about the history of socialism in America, we certainly would say that the socialist party was founded by socialists, but we should also say that the Republican party was founded by socialists.”

Bridge, 39, adds: “There’s this building called the little white schoolhouse, which is a museum now as the founding place of the Republican party, so there’s Trump and George W Bush and all these big posters for Republicans – but it’s funny also knowing that the little white schoolhouse was indeed a schoolhouse for socialists in the 1800s.”

“It was set up by socialists to be more democratic and help the people there and now most of the Republican leadership in that state come out of the bank and they don’t want anything to do with socialism. They don’t like talking about their early days history. But it’s clear today it was socialists setting up that bank and making it so successful.”

Another subject in the film, Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia University, testifies that Republican president Theodore Roosevelt’s platform was to the left of Sanders, advocating for a national health service, unemployment insurance and controls over corporations, though he did not call himself a socialist.

In the Great Depression, Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal adopted ideas from the socialist party and provided social security, the first minimum wage, unemployment compensation and millions of public sector jobs – “classical socialist things”, as one interviewee puts it.

The 1963 march on Washington was in fact the “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom”. Foner argues that the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr increasingly demanded fundamental changes in the economic system, but this radical edge is too often rubbed smooth by today’s efforts to sanitise him as a cosy symbol of racial reconciliation.

Bridge observes: “I don’t think this is an experience unique to the United States in that we whitewash all of our history and we defang it and we make it less radical and then we bring it into the fold.

“So now everyone loves Martin Luther King and he’s so fantastic and revered and what a wonderful human and we can certainly agree with all of his ideas. But he was certainly not that popular during his day and increasingly over the course of his life, when he saw economic inequality as a great barrier to racial equality and started using language of capitalism and socialism, that was very threatening. It was the beginning of the end.”

Barack Obama was branded a socialist for making relatively modest changes to the healthcare system. But the eruption of Sanders, an independent senator for Vermont and self-declared democratic socialist, in the 2016 Democratic primary shook American politics. Since then membership of the once dormant Democratic Socialists of America has soared to nearly 100,000. Union membership is also growing fast.

Now 79, Sanders is chair of the powerful Senate budget committee, while his ally the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 31, has built a huge following. In June the socialist India Walton won a Democratic primary that made her virtually certain to become the mayor of Buffalo, New York.

The comedian Bill Maher once noted that the United Nations’ annual world happiness rankings were led by “socialist-friendly” countries like Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Canada, asking: “If socialism is such a one-way ticket to becoming the nightmare of Venezuela, then why do all the happiest countries in the world embrace it?”

Even within the US, it can be argued that the publicly funded elements of education, healthcare, media, transport and welfare – including a new child tax credit that aims to cut child poverty in half – are inspired by socialism. Yet the ideology is still used as a bogeyman by Republicans and rightwing media who point to the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela and other countries to warn that it would destroy America.

More at the link: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/aug/26/big-scary-s-word-socialism-documentary-film

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 236
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

False.  First - working more gets you more.  Period.  Even if there is a floor (welfare, or minimum wage) improving yourself brings more wealth.  Proof:  Look around you. False.  Based on so ma

Reality is, the US is a Social Democracy, we're just really inefficient at it due to the graft of the ownership class.  

Yeah, that's why the U.S. is 27th in social mobility - because its system is so much better suited to it. It's also why the top dozen (at least) countries are all social democracies. Moron.

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Socialism = Communism = Marxism = Fascism = Feminism = Terrorism = Anything we don't understand and don't like because Fox News told us it was bad :rolleyes:

This is the basic problem - people using a word they don't agree what it means. So the GOP uses it as virtually synonymous with Communist, which it is not, and equates Social Security with China. The GOP needs to quit the labeling.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

”[Republican Senator Robert] Taft explained that the great issue in this campaign is ‘creeping socialism’. Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people. When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan ‘Down With Socialism’ on the banner of his ‘great crusade,’ that is really not what he means at all. What he really means is, ‘Down with Progress — down with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal,’ and ‘down with Harry Truman’s fair Deal.’ That is what he means.”

  • Harry S. Truman, October 1952

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Socialism = Communism = Marxism = Fascism = Feminism = Terrorism = Anything we don't understand and don't like because Fox News told us it was bad :rolleyes:

I started a thread many years ago on the topic. Most people have no idea what it means other than DemocRATS and BAD!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

I ummmm, I think there are two very distinct problems with socialism, or more aptly Redistributionism.

The first is it disincentives a positive work ethic. Putting aside that aspect of "S" it creates a permanent underclass which when you consider the argument for redistributionism, one of either equity or equality, it has the exact opposite result. By doing so it creates a society or portion of society dependent on government. That leverage  afforded our elected officials leads to an authoritarian ruling class. 

The second issue is closely related to the above in that it divides us into two distinct class. As Phil Gramm put it most bluntly, "more people riding in the cart than people pulling the cart." The results in time become those receiving always want for more. And those affording resenting being asked to give more and more.

As for the mention of Scandinavia held up as an example, these countries are quite small in relation to the US. You do not get an economy of scale in an exponentially larger country. You get just the opposite, an unruly bureaucracy. 

That's exactly the problem, you don't understand the definition of socialism.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

I ummmm, I think there are two very distinct problems with socialism, or more aptly Redistributionism.

The first is it disincentives a positive work ethic. Putting aside that aspect of "S" it creates a permanent underclass which when you consider the argument for redistributionism, one of either equity or equality, it has the exact opposite result. By doing so it creates a society or portion of society dependent on government. That leverage  afforded our elected officials leads to an authoritarian ruling class. 

The second issue is closely related to the above in that it divides us into two distinct class. As Phil Gramm put it most bluntly, "more people riding in the cart than people pulling the cart." The results in time become those receiving always want for more. And those affording resenting being asked to give more and more.

As for the mention of Scandinavia held up as an example, these countries are quite small in relation to the US. You do not get an economy of scale in an exponentially larger country. You get just the opposite, an unruly bureaucracy. 

I have seen this written 1,000 times and never made any sense at all and has been disproven over and over and over.

This is basically social Darwinism, if you are poor and starving it is because you deserve to be.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Thanks for the laugh.

Reality is, the US is a Social Democracy, we're just really inefficient at it due to the graft of the ownership class.

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I started a thread many years ago on the topic. Most people have no idea what it means other than DemocRATS and BAD!

Let's call it a continuing educational project. We have half the country listening to their preferred media or their chosen representative to believe that the government is never the solution, only the problem. The other guys government is corrupt, lying, and has a secret agenda involving 5G, injected chips, pizza pedophilia in a basement, and we are the crazy ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Reality is, the US is a Social Democracy, we're just really inefficient at it due to the graft of the ownership class.

 

Hell, in my lifetime the 2 biggest socialists were St Ron and Bush Jr.

St Ronnie made sure the sick couldn't be turned away, and Bush got the massive drug enhancement to medicare done.

Problem was, they created a 2m person workforce and owner class that exist only to push paper around these 2 expansions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I was born in ’87, I don’t remember the Berlin wall falling, so the ‘red scare’ – anybody who uses the big scary ‘s’ word is automatically Stalin – it just doesn’t work any more.”

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.... 

Maybe once upon a time. These days history has been reduced to simple arguments that Socialism is really just Communism. That's what Fox News does for this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

The first is it disincentives a positive work ethic.

False.  First - working more gets you more.  Period.  Even if there is a floor (welfare, or minimum wage) improving yourself brings more wealth.  Proof:  Look around you.

46 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Putting aside that aspect of "S" it creates a permanent underclass.

False.  Based on so many assumptions it's absurd at its core.  There IS a point at which you are stuck and can't get out - it's when the wages paid for the labor are so low that you spend your entire life working just to buy food.  There is no chance for betterment in that paradigm.

 

46 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

By doing so it creates a society or portion of society dependent on government.

I love this.  So which is it?  Is it the ENTIRE society?  Or .00001% of society?  Because your overly broad statement encompasses the entire gamut - as it was meant to.  But, in reality, there will always be a small portion of people that depend on government.  I'm thinking about the severely disabled, those with mental issues, etc.  The idea that providing a minimum wage or a payment that provides the minimum to live on somehow will make the population entirely dependent on the government it absurd at it's core.  It requires us to believe that people would never want more than that, would never want to be educated and get better jobs so they can afford nice cars, cell phones, and big houses.  It's idiotic.

46 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

That leverage  afforded our elected officials leads to an authoritarian ruling class.

What you utterly fail to realize is that our current government is already Authoritarian.  It just happens to be an Authoritarian Oligarchy, where the majority of the power resides in the rich elite.  Bringing up the bottom, helping lower income folks become upwardly mobile helps to remedy the CURRENT authoritarian situation.

46 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

The second issue is closely related to the above in that it divides us into two distinct class. As Phil Gramm put it most bluntly, "more people riding in the cart than people pulling the cart." The results in time become those receiving always want for more. And those affording resenting being asked to give more and more.

What country do you live in?  It's been that way here for a long time and it's getting much worse.  And as long as we continue to ignore the real reasons and how the rich manage to redistribute the wealth to themselves, it's going to keep worse.

I'll give you a perfect example.  The recent tax changes put in by Trump totally gutted the donation system.  It removed the monetary motivation for most middle / upper class citizens to donate by increasing the standard deduction and really hurting those that itemize.  As a result - donations have plummeted across the country.  One of the biggest things I believe that Americans could be proud of - their philanthropy - is being removed in the name of a fake tax-cut.  (Congratulations Republicans).  Of course - you'd call that redistribution of wealth.

You're a idiot.  And you forgot to type duopoly.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

That was really good. I want to expand on this part.

14 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

...  There IS a point at which you are stuck and can't get out - it's when the wages paid for the labor are so low that you spend your entire life working just to buy food.  ...

This is country as company town where your choice is Amazon and $15/hr would kill the capitalist golden goose (which needed a $3B tax break to locate their HQ2 in NY). Is free enterprise really so fragile?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

That was really good. I want to expand on this part.

This is country as company town where your choice is Amazon and $15/hr would kill the capitalist golden goose (which needed a $3B tax break to locate their HQ2 in NY). Is free enterprise really so fragile?

Some countries exist well with Socialism. In the classic Social Democracies of Europe, the Europeans found a way to combine Capitalist structures of private ownership with Socialist values of looking after all members of society. 

Exhibit one and two, the largest shareholder of Renault and Airbus, is France, while the largest shareholder of Volkswagen, is the state of Lower Saxony.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty simple - few Americans understand the difference between socialism (which they already have) and totalitarian dictatorships.

I mean FFS, many of these idiots think NORK is a socialist country. :rolleyes:

Labels are the only thing they can grasp.

For most of my life it was "Commie" - now it's "Socialism".

This pic is the level of comprehension for all too many Americans;

image.jpeg.2020dc3b3eb6b1ab1102683075f18d77.jpeg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SloopJonB said:

It's pretty simple - few Americans understand the difference between socialism (which they already have) and totalitarian dictatorships.

I mean FFS, many of these idiots think NORK is a socialist country. :rolleyes:

Labels are the only thing they can grasp.

For most of my life it was "Commie" - now it's "Socialism".

They are working their way down to "Democracy". It's already started.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, badlatitude said:

”[Republican Senator Robert] Taft explained that the great issue in this campaign is ‘creeping socialism’. Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people. When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan ‘Down With Socialism’ on the banner of his ‘great crusade,’ that is really not what he means at all. What he really means is, ‘Down with Progress — down with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal,’ and ‘down with Harry Truman’s fair Deal.’ That is what he means.”

  • Harry S. Truman, October 1952

The US socializes corporate losses and the corporate-owned politicians make damn sure profits go the other direction.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

It's pretty simple - few Americans understand the difference between socialism (which they already have) and totalitarian dictatorships.

I mean FFS, many of these idiots think NORK is a socialist country. :rolleyes:

Labels are the only thing they can grasp.

For most of my life it was "Commie" - now it's "Socialism".

This pic is the level of comprehension for all too many Americans;

image.jpeg.2020dc3b3eb6b1ab1102683075f18d77.jpeg

If your stomache can tolerate a field trip to the ultra-right Gab.com site, you will see that the "communism" (i.e. everything that isn't Republican ideology) label is back in a big way.  It is used almost daily by the populist scum like Boebert and MTG.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Boebert grew up on welfare.

Paul Ryan went to college on a S/S survivor pension after his father died - then he started cutting everything he could find once he was in government.

Scum or stupid - you decide.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SloopJonB said:

Apparently Boebert grew up on welfare.

Paul Ryan went to college on a S/S survivor pension after his father died - then he started cutting everything he could find once he was in government.

Scum or stupid - you decide.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

People are afraid of socialism because they have been taught by capitalist pigs, that socialism is evil. Capitalists, by nature have more influence/money than socialists, so the message is louder, and stronger than the response that socialism is the way that most of nature works. It really ought to bee rebranded as symbiotism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tax Man said:

Two bad actors ruined the name for everyone else:  USSR and NSDP

NSDAP, to be correct, had nothing to do with socialism. They were fascist nationalists.

Funny how in the US a social market economy is always equaled to socialism by the right. But yeah the fear of the UdSSR and communism runs deep in the Divided States of America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Socialism = Communism = Marxism = Fascism = Feminism = Terrorism = Anything we don't understand and don't like because Fox News told us it was bad :rolleyes:

Fox' legacy will be its strident efforts at dismembering education and cognitive thought and replacing it with emotional red-mist spurned outrage.

Long live education. And Lulu. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, even here no one uses the terms anywhere close to correctly.

Socialism is the state of proletarian tyrany in a country after the proletarian revolution and before communism, which has to be global. As in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

So no one wants that these days aside from a few stoned college kids. Not even Sanders.

People are arguing for a social democratic type welfare state as described by Gøsta Esping-Anderson. And you might want to read his Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with a socialist democracy is the difficulty for upward mobility from the serving to the served class. If you are already rich socialism is fine. It's not that hard to structure your wealth to manage the taxation. You still get all the benefits at the same price as the regular guy! 

The US system is far better suited to bootstrapping yourself from one class to the other. Even if you are from meager means. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mathystuff said:

Well, even here no one uses the terms anywhere close to correctly.

Socialism is the state of proletarian tyrany in a country after the proletarian revolution and before communism, which has to be global. As in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

So no one wants that these days aside from a few stoned college kids. Not even Sanders.

People are arguing for a social democratic type welfare state as described by Gøsta Esping-Anderson. And you might want to read his Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.

I agree, we are talking about Social Democracy, there is a big difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy. Both of those elements support social benefits like free education and health care, they disagree on how much the state should own and provide. A Social Democracy just gives every citizen (more) equal opportunities, and it benefits the  larger percentage of the population, and the rich are still rich. If people understood what a Social Democracy really is, the U.S. would be overwhelmingly supportive.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

The US system is far better suited to bootstrapping yourself from one class to the other. Even if you are from meager means.

In both directions as the drug crisis shows.

And of course ignoring the "socialist" elements like social security or free health care which safeguard all of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Marty6 said:
26 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

The US system is far better suited to bootstrapping yourself from one class to the other. Even if you are from meager means.

In both directions as the drug crisis shows.

And of course ignoring the "socialist" elements like social security or free health care which safeguard all of this.

Upward social (economic) mobility in the USA has slowed and almost stopped in the past 40~50 years. Mr Ballast is daydreaming of glorious days of yore.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Movable Ballast said:

The biggest problem with a socialist democracy is the difficulty for upward mobility from the serving to the served class. If you are already rich socialism is fine. It's not that hard to structure your wealth to manage the taxation. You still get all the benefits at the same price as the regular guy! 

The US system is far better suited to bootstrapping yourself from one class to the other. Even if you are from meager means. 

 

Except that social mobility in the US is down quite a bit from just 20 years ago. Keep telling yourself lies.

 

16th of the top 24 countries. Not even top 1/2!

 

When compared to 24 middle-income and high- income countries, the U.S. ranks 16th in the amount of intergenerational earnings mobility.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Except that social mobility in the US is down quite a bit from just 20 years ago. Keep telling yourself lies.

 

16th of the top 24 countries. Not even top 1/2!

 

When compared to 24 middle-income and high- income countries, the U.S. ranks 16th in the amount of intergenerational earnings mobility.

Social mobility for some Americans are from what dreams are made.

Apple CEO Poised to Get $750 Million Final Payout

(Bloomberg) -- Tim Cook, Apple Inc.’s chief executive officer, will this week collect the 10th and final tranche of the pay deal he received a decade ago after he took over the top job from co-founder Steve Jobs. 

The haul consists of about 5 million shares worth roughly $750 million, according to calculations by Bloomberg News. Part of the payout is contingent on Apple’s stock return over the past three years surpassing at least two-thirds of companies in the S&P 500 -- a threshold the iPhone maker cleared by a wide margin. 

Apple’s soaring stock price has allowed Cook, 60, to collect top payouts year after year and made him a billionaire. He currently has a net worth of about $1.5 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. The Apple executive said in 2015 that he plans to give most of his fortune away and has already donated millions of dollars worth of Apple shares. 

Cook initially joined Apple in the late 1990s after stints at Compaq and IBM. He quickly became Apple’s top operations executive and the No. 2 to Jobs. As great as Jobs was at dreaming up the next major product, Cook was an expert at making those devices happen, manufacturing and distribution-wise. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-ceo-poised-to-get-dollar750-million-final-payout-from-award/ar-AANLP9h 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One frequently overlooked socialist sector of the US economy are the co-ops  . .  

They do a better job than the private sector in many respects, and likely would have taken over society a while back were it not for corrupt pols. 

Electricity for example . . (and the stats below do not even count the publicly owned electric companies) 

Co-ops power over 20 million businesses, homes, schools and farms in 48 states. In 2019, America's electric co-ops returned more than $1.3 billion in capital credits to their consumer-members. 832 distribution co-ops are the foundation of the electric cooperative network.

Bolstering our decision to incorporate as a cooperative are statistics such as the following: 29,000 cooperatives operate in every sector of the U.S. economy. 1 billion people are members of cooperatives worldwide. 1 in 3 Americans are co-op members holding 350 million co-op memberships worldwide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

The biggest problem with a socialist democracy is the difficulty for upward mobility from the serving to the served class. If you are already rich socialism is fine. It's not that hard to structure your wealth to manage the taxation. You still get all the benefits at the same price as the regular guy! 

The US system is far better suited to bootstrapping yourself from one class to the other. Even if you are from meager means.

Yeah, that's why the U.S. is 27th in social mobility - because its system is so much better suited to it.

It's also why the top dozen (at least) countries are all social democracies.

Moron.

Global Social Mobility Index (2020)

List of countries ranked by their score in the Global Social Mobility Index 2020. The value 100 was the best possible score a country could reach.[2]

Rank Country Index Score
1 20px-Flag_of_Denmark.svg.png Denmark 85.2
2 21px-Flag_of_Norway.svg.png Norway 83.6
3 23px-Flag_of_Finland.svg.png Finland 83.6
4 23px-Flag_of_Sweden.svg.png Sweden 83.5
5 21px-Flag_of_Iceland.svg.png Iceland 82.7
6 23px-Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg.png Netherlands 82.4
7 16px-Flag_of_Switzerland.svg.png  Switzerland 82.1
8 23px-Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg.png Belgium 80.1
9 23px-Flag_of_Austria.svg.png Austria 80.1
10 23px-Flag_of_Luxembourg.svg.png Luxembourg 79.8
11 23px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png Germany 78.8
12 23px-Flag_of_France.svg.png France 76.7
13 23px-Flag_of_Slovenia.svg.png Slovenia 76.4
14 23px-Flag_of_Canada_%28Pantone%29.svg.pn Canada 76.1
15 23px-Flag_of_Japan.svg.png Japan 76.1
16 23px-Flag_of_Australia_%28converted%29.s Australia 75.1
17 23px-Flag_of_Malta.svg.png Malta 75.0
18 23px-Flag_of_Ireland.svg.png Ireland 75.0
19 23px-Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg.png Czech Republic 74.7
20 23px-Flag_of_Singapore.svg.png Singapore 74.6
21 23px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png United Kingdom 74.4
22 23px-Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg.png New Zealand 74.3
23 23px-Flag_of_Estonia.svg.png Estonia 73.5
24 23px-Flag_of_Portugal.svg.png Portugal 72.0
25 23px-Flag_of_South_Korea.svg.png South Korea 71.4
26 23px-Flag_of_Lithuania.svg.png Lithuania 70.5
27 23px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png United States 70.4
28 23px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png Spain 70.0
29 23px-Flag_of_Cyprus.svg.png Cyprus 69.4
30 23px-Flag_of_Poland.svg.png Poland 69.1
31 23px-Flag_of_Latvia.svg.png Latvia 69.0
32 23px-Flag_of_Slovakia.svg.png Slovakia 68.5
33 21px-Flag_of_Israel.svg.png Israel 68.1
34 23px-Flag_of_Italy.svg.png Italy 67.4
35 23px-Flag_of_Uruguay.svg.png Uruguay 67.1
36 23px-Flag_of_Croatia.svg.png Croatia 66.7
37 23px-Flag_of_Hungary.svg.png Hungary 65.8
38 23px-Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg.png Kazakhstan 64.8
39 23px-Flag_of_Russia.svg.png Russia 64.7
40 23px-Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg.png Bulgaria 63.8
41 23px-Flag_of_Serbia.svg.png Serbia 63.8
42 23px-Flag_of_Romania.svg.png Romania 63.1
43 23px-Flag_of_Malaysia.svg.png Malaysia 62.0
44 23px-Flag_of_Costa_Rica.svg.png Costa Rica 61.6
45 23px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_ China 61.5
46 23px-Flag_of_Ukraine.svg.png Ukraine 61.2
47 23px-Flag_of_Chile.svg.png Chile 60.3
48 23px-Flag_of_Greece.svg.png Greece 59.8
49 23px-Flag_of_Moldova.svg.png Moldova 59.6
50 23px-Flag_of_Vietnam.svg.png Vietnam 57.8
51 23px-Flag_of_Argentina.svg.png Argentina 57.3
52 23px-Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia.svg.png Saudi Arabia 57.1
53 23px-Flag_of_Georgia.svg.png Georgia 55.6
54 21px-Flag_of_Albania.svg.png Albania 55.6
55 23px-Flag_of_Thailand.svg.png Thailand 55.4
56 23px-Flag_of_Armenia.svg.png Armenia 53.9
57 23px-Flag_of_Ecuador.svg.png Ecuador 53.9
58 23px-Flag_of_Mexico.svg.png Mexico 52.6
59 23px-Flag_of_Sri_Lanka.svg.png Sri Lanka 52.3
60 22px-Flag_of_Brazil.svg.png Brazil 52.1
61 23px-Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg.png Philippines 51.7
62 23px-Flag_of_Tunisia.svg.png Tunisia 51.7
63 23px-Flag_of_Panama.svg.png Panama 51.4
64 23px-Flag_of_Turkey.svg.png Turkey 51.3
65 23px-Flag_of_Colombia.svg.png Colombia 50.3
66 23px-Flag_of_Peru.svg.png Peru 49.9
67 23px-Flag_of_Indonesia.svg.png Indonesia 49.3
68 23px-Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg.png El Salvador 47.4
69 23px-Flag_of_Paraguay.svg.png Paraguay 46.8
70 23px-Flag_of_Ghana.svg.png Ghana 45.5
71 23px-Flag_of_Egypt.svg.png Egypt 44.8
72 23px-Flag_of_Laos.svg.png Laos 43.8
73 23px-Flag_of_Morocco.svg.png Morocco 43.7
74 23px-Flag_of_Honduras.svg.png Honduras 43.5
75 23px-Flag_of_Guatemala.svg.png Guatemala 43.5
76 23px-Flag_of_India.svg.png India 42.7
77 23px-Flag_of_South_Africa.svg.png South Africa 41.4
78 23px-Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg.png Bangladesh 40.2
79 23px-Flag_of_Pakistan.svg.png Pakistan 36.7
80 23px-Flag_of_Cameroon.svg.png Cameroon 36.0
81 23px-Flag_of_Senegal.svg.png Senegal 36.0
82 23px-Flag_of_C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire.svg.pn Ivory Coast 34.5
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The Norwegian Dream is to move from lower middle class to upper middle class.

The American Dream is to move from a homeless bum to being a billionaire. Thus bums will vote against taxing billionaires because they will be one too any day now :rolleyes:

Exactly. Thay’s gonna be tah-coons. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Wiki huh... OK.

Mathy's info is solid . .  original source cited by Wiki is The World Economic Forum. 

Why don't you just admit it when you are wrong ?? 

Ideologue 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mathystuff said:

The US is at 70.4 and Denmark is a 85.2. This seems about right. The US is not terrible by any means. We're upper midpack, but certainly behind Northern Europe. However if you broke that out, my guess is that Dumbfuckistan is less, much less mobile than the Coasts. Ambitious immigrants don't head to Iowa. They head to California and the mobility here probably rivals Denmark. Dumbfuckistan, on the other hand, is closer to Mexico.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Mathy's info is solid . .  original source cited by Wiki is The World Economic Forum. 

Why don't you just admit it when you are wrong ?? 

Ideologue 

Which country made more new millionaires in 2021?

The US by far. 

 World gained 5.2m millionaires last year in Covid crisis – report | The super-rich | The Guardian

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Mathy's info is solid . .  original source cited by Wiki is The World Economic Forum. 

Why don't you just admit it when you are wrong ?? 

Ideologue 

Oh and pre-Covid as well.

Why don't you just admit you're wrong...

These 10 countries have minted the most new millionaires in 2019 | Markets Insider (businessinsider.com)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:
17 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Mathy's info is solid . .  original source cited by Wiki is The World Economic Forum. 

Why don't you just admit it when you are wrong ?? 

Ideologue 

Oh and pre-Covid as well.

Why don't you just admit you're wrong...

These 10 countries have minted the most new millionaires in 2019 | Markets Insider (businessinsider.com)

What was the net worth of those "new millionaires" the year before? 5 years before?

The measure of upward mobility is spread across the whole population, not just the 5%ers moving into the 3%er category. I apologize if this is too mathematically complex for you to grasp.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Which country made more new millionaires in 2021?

Your data have nothing to do with social mobility . .  the new millionaires likely came from the wealthier classes. 

If you are really interested in social mobility, which I suspect you are not, look at the problems low income kids have with higher education ..  

https://www.brookings.edu/research/higher-education-and-the-opportunity-gap/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

What was the net worth of those "new millionaires" the year before? 5 years before?

The measure of upward mobility is spread across the whole population, not just the 5%ers moving into the 3%er category. I apologize if this is too mathematically complex for you to grasp.

- DSK

No need to apologize. The facts are supported by evidence as stated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Your data have nothing to do with social mobility . .  the new millionaires likely came from the wealthier classes. 

If you are really interested in social mobility, which I suspect you are not, look at the problems low income kids have with higher education ..  

https://www.brookings.edu/research/higher-education-and-the-opportunity-gap/

 

Who's talking about social mobility? I was talking about the opportunity to move from one class to another. You guys went down a different road... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Which country made more new millionaires in 2021?

The US by far. 

 World gained 5.2m millionaires last year in Covid crisis – report | The super-rich | The Guardian

You're using an article who's prime point is income inequality to prove your incorrect assertation about income mobility in the U.S.? 

Not only that, the #'s in that article are totals, not per capita and thus aren't directly comparable. 

Oh, because I'm not a RWNJ, I can do actual math, the article doesn't even show the U.S. had more nouveau millionaires. 

521 nouveau millionaires per 100K US

761 nouveau millionaires per 100K Germany

So, the euro democratic socialists are still winning.

That straw was a long way away, don't think you quite grabbed it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gptyk said:

You're using an article who's prime point is income inequality to prove your incorrect assertation about income mobility in the U.S.? 

Not only that, the #'s in that article are totals, not per capita and thus aren't directly comparable. 

Oh, because I'm not a RWNJ, I can do actual math, the article doesn't even show the U.S. had more nouveau millionaires. 

521 nouveau millionaires per 100K US

761 nouveau millionaires per 100K Germany

So, the euro democratic socialists are still winning.

That straw was a long way away, don't think you quite grabbed it.

 

There's nothing morally wrong with income inequality... You get what you work for... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Who's talking about social mobility? I was talking about the opportunity to move from one class to another. You guys went down a different road... 

Umm, you might want to re-read this. Take your time.

I also suggest looking at how many people move from lower-income to middle-income categories; and also the comparison of average wages to the price index(es) for the past ~30 years.

You're living in a dream world

 

1 minute ago, Movable Ballast said:

There's nothing morally wrong with income inequality... You get what you work for... 

So, you believe that all rich people work harder than all poor people?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Umm, you might want to re-read this. Take your time.

I also suggest looking at how many people move from lower-income to middle-income categories; and also the comparison of average wages to the price index(es) for the past ~30 years.

You're living in a dream world

 

So, you believe that all rich people work harder than all poor people?

- DSK

No, smarter... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2021 at 10:12 AM, quod umbra said:

I ummmm, I think there are two very distinct problems with socialism, or more aptly Redistributionism.

The first is it disincentives a positive work ethic. Putting aside that aspect of "S" it creates a permanent underclass which when you consider the argument for redistributionism, one of either equity or equality, it has the exact opposite result. By doing so it creates a society or portion of society dependent on government. That leverage  afforded our elected officials leads to an authoritarian ruling class. 

The second issue is closely related to the above in that it divides us into two distinct class. As Phil Gramm put it most bluntly, "more people riding in the cart than people pulling the cart." The results in time become those receiving always want for more. And those affording resenting being asked to give more and more.

As for the mention of Scandinavia held up as an example, these countries are quite small in relation to the US. You do not get an economy of scale in an exponentially larger country. You get just the opposite, an unruly bureaucracy. 

Sorry Shadow. That dog won't hunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

There's nothing morally wrong with income inequality... You get what you work for... 

Look, Squirrel!

Nice way to ignore that the article you posted to prove your point completely disproved your point. 

KIS was right about bums and millionaires.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:
24 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

.... So, you believe that all rich people work harder than all poor people?

No, smarter... 

"Smart" being a way of saying "take in more resources than they produce"

Do you also believe that people with darker-hued skin are all less "smart" than whiter people? Take a look at income and wealth distribution by race and think about it.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Who's talking about social mobility? I was talking about the opportunity to move from one class to another. You guys went down a different road... 

I did not. The data posted was $ mobility. "Making new millionaires" adds nothing to the discussion when looking at movement from income quintiles. Sorry, not sorry for your (continued) confusion. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Movable Ballast said:

Which country made more new millionaires in 2021?

The US by far. 

 World gained 5.2m millionaires last year in Covid crisis – report | The super-rich | The Guardian

The US has 330M people. Germany has 83M people. From your article, the US generated 1,730,000 millionaires whereas Germany only generated 633,000.

United States  1,730,000 / (330 million / 100,000) = 524 new millionaires per 100K

Germany 633,000 / (83 million / 100,000) = 762 new millionaires per 100K

This is not math. This is arithmetic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

Mathy's info is solid . .  original source cited by Wiki is The World Economic Forum. 

Why don't you just admit it when you are wrong ?? 

Ideologue 

You spelled "idiot" wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Movable Ballast said:

No need to apologize. The facts are supported by evidence as stated. 

Your 'evidence' isn't evidence.

You LITERALLY are ignoring the metric that by definition IS the evidence for social mobility.  Instead, you're picking a random statistic that you believe may support your argument - even when it doesn't.  The number of millionaires is NOT a measure of upwards mobility.  Any more than the number of people who came off welfare is a measure of the same.

I agree that you're an Ideologue (sp? Idiot?).  You have your preconceived "Rah Rah USA" and really aren't interested in the data at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

The US is at 70.4 and Denmark is a 85.2. This seems about right. The US is not terrible by any means. We're upper midpack,

Mid pack for the whole world maybe.

As for developed nations, with 2 or 3 exceptions, the U.S. is at the bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Movable Ballast said:

Who's talking about social mobility? I was talking about the opportunity to move from one class to another.

:lol:

And there you have it.

Priceless.