First, they don't define socialism. I think this is a miss. From other studies of groups like Democrats it is less about moving toward socialism, but more around social programs. And those get conflated. Programs such as universal healthcare. How do we know that? Because when you listen to far left individuals like Bernie Sanders and AOC in the Democratic party they will point to places like the nordic countries, which have large social programs, but are very capitalistic, typically rating higher than the US in terms of capitalistic freedoms.
...of a discussion about teachers' unions I had with my former manager, whose wife was a teacher. My thought was that when a group of workers votes to join a union, what they're saying is that they distrust their current management so much, they're willing to fund a parallel management structure for their organization.
In the same way, when a person endorses socialism, they're basically saying that they distrust the current management of companies they see so much, they're willing to risk the consequences of allocating the management role to government. In which case I'd be tempted to ask them "take a look around at some of these politicians--and I don't care where you stand politically, you're going to find a lot of them where you'll say "God help us if this person is ever in charge.".
And that person is precisely who's going to be running your organization, according to Murphy's Law. The tragic failures and atrocities of Communism are part and parcel of actual socialism, government ownership of the means of production.
Discussion
NewA few points. First, they…
A few points.
First, they don't define socialism. I think this is a miss. From other studies of groups like Democrats it is less about moving toward socialism, but more around social programs. And those get conflated. Programs such as universal healthcare. How do we know that? Because when you listen to far left individuals like Bernie Sanders and AOC in the Democratic party they will point to places like the nordic countries, which have large social programs, but are very capitalistic, typically rating higher than the US in terms of capitalistic freedoms.
NewIt reminds me...
...of a discussion about teachers' unions I had with my former manager, whose wife was a teacher. My thought was that when a group of workers votes to join a union, what they're saying is that they distrust their current management so much, they're willing to fund a parallel management structure for their organization.
In the same way, when a person endorses socialism, they're basically saying that they distrust the current management of companies they see so much, they're willing to risk the consequences of allocating the management role to government. In which case I'd be tempted to ask them "take a look around at some of these politicians--and I don't care where you stand politically, you're going to find a lot of them where you'll say "God help us if this person is ever in charge.".
And that person is precisely who's going to be running your organization, according to Murphy's Law. The tragic failures and atrocities of Communism are part and parcel of actual socialism, government ownership of the means of production.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.