Why do so many Americans want socialism (and support Bernie Sanders' Idealism)?

Walter and Cicerone, you have a different definition of socialism than what Marx promulgated, which is the working class, -not "community", -owning and running industry. You're free to choose alternate definitions but don't claim them to be reflective of Marxist theory. Your definition fails to preclude capitalism. Businesses like the American business "Costco", which runs an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), could be said to be "owned by the community" since the workers who live in the community where they work, or nearby, own shares of the business. But that is a contradiction of Marxist theory and definitions. The essence of socialism is that it is a different relationship between worker and business owner than is found in capitalism. Marx's theory cannot free the workers from capitalist exploitation unless private ownership of the means of production is eliminated and workers actively, actually, do in fact own and run business. THAT is Marxian theory. And the very early attempts to establish worker ownership of business began with the idea that state power must first be seized and then the economics of socialism must be established, but that failed. And we have remnants of that failed and failing strategy still with us in various countries.

Cicerone, your definition, which was produced by capitalists, does not assure the ownership of business will not be exploitive or that it will be ownership by workers. That is why it has been rejected.

KK4mds, how do you know this when there has never been a communist system?

That is untrue, as is your AEI right wing think tank article. I suppose you really believe that if socialism held potential for solutions that AEI would say so, right? LOL!!!!!!! And the fox told you the hen house was secure, eh? LOL!!!

Marx fought Socialism, thought, it was just a pre-status. That's why socialist parties separated from communist parties in communist parties in the 19th century. (We even got the short-living Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany (USPD) in the early 20th century, a (simplified) more communist-leaning socialist party than the Socialists.

[As an aside: members of the Socialist Party were called from the earliest "Sozis", since about 1860.]

Marx opposed socialism?? That's a new one! LOL!!! Marx said socialism was the next step after capitalism.



"Communist-leaning"? Is the following not true?... The classical left-wing of the SPD claims that in recent years the welfare state has been curtailed through reform programs such as the Agenda 2010, Hartz IV and the more economic liberal stance of the SPD, which were endorsed by centrist social democrats.

An "economic liberal stance" means a support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. And that means privately owned business for private profit. And that means capitalism. Social democracy usually means a mix of capitalism and socialist-type public programs.

I'm not only living in Gewrmany but I'm fluent in German as well.
You really should read the discussions between Marx and Lasalle about this topic!




Perhaps you missed that I wrote about the USPD? Established in 1917 because of ... what you dispute? Terminated in 1931, so it has nothing to do what you wrote above.[/quote]

Obviously you really don't understand "Soziale Marktwirtschaft".
And even more obvious, you don't understand how political parties work here.

If that's news you'd better read more of Walter's posts. There's clearly a lot you don't know.

It's easy to object that I don't understand, I don't understand, I don't understand, but it is another thing to discuss socialism in terms of its origin and appearance in the world and the recognized, accepted source of it which gives it its meaning.

Actually, I really wanted to discuss "socialism in terms of its origin".

I admit that I didn't give the sources, just mentioned them, like the Socialist Internal. You can google for it and read about "the appearance in the world" (wikipedia has a lot of "accepted sources" in the related article).

But in short: originally an ally of Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle became increasingly disenchanted with Marx's political tactics from the 1850s onward. Lassalle called for greater internal party democracy, rejecting Marx's doctrine of class war. Further, he encouraged close cooperation with the state, favoring a plan of working within the system. For a brief time in 1862-1863, Lassalle even entered into negotiations with newly appointed Prussian Chancellor Bismarck to work out a plan for granting universal suffrage.
Marx not only rejected Lasalle's "iron law of wages", but was vehemently critical about other issues (for instance co-ops).

The problem is that power does not relinquish power without resisting with all it has. So since the problem is capitalism with its private ownership and control, –all for private profit, any concessions that interfere with that power or that profit and wealth will be eventually eliminated by the "powers that be". This has been proven by the experience of the USA after FDR brought us The New Deal with all its socialistic-type programs for the people. As soon as it was in place, the right began attacking it in every way possible, chipping away at it relentlessly, developing scary and worrisome propaganda to fight it, passing sneaky laws and blatant laws to undermine it all, bit by bit. It was necessary from the start to constantly fight to keep what was won, and eventually the people lost due to the sheer power and wealth of the opposition from the right. So Lassalle, who died at age 39 and had little of his own analysis and theory, preferring to advance those of other thinkers with whom he agreed, promoted ideas that would eventually fail due to the powers arrayed against such reforms.

Lassalle was a small-time figure who was no challenge to the intellect, insight, and prolific thinker and writer, Karl Marx. And so any time anyone raises principles of socialism, the right always goes straight to a criticism of Marx. They see Marx as the source of such ideas. But no matter who you may credit with concepts of socialism, if the capitalist class ultimately remains in control, there is no end to worker exploitation. But in the end, capitalism will collapse under its own weight when its strengths and advantages are sapped and worn out, and we see that happening today in the U.S.

The problem is that when capitalism inevitably collapses, it descends into totalitarianism, oppression, and intolerable conditions. At that point, without strong and large political power and organizations, the working class and people in general are impotent to deal with their oppression. Then disorganized rebellion will happen and will be easily and ruthlessly crushed by the totalitarian forces of the capitalist class. Hence it is necessary to act now to organize, to change the economic system bit by bit, and raise up strong politicians who support such changes.

Besides that I doubt, Lasalle was a small time figure (at least he was a co-founder of the oldest Socialist party in the world), stay with your opinion and be happy with it.

And you with yours.

Strange as so called socialism when it come to medical treatments in the first world seem to work far far better then our system if measure by the total cost or the outcome by such measurement as the average lifespan of the populations.

Some Americans have even gone to Cuba for treatment if they have enough money to get there, the care is so high-quality and cutting edge.

You're confusing capitalism and socialism.

[code]Some Americans have even gone to Cuba for treatment if they have enough money to get there, the care is so high-quality and cutting edge./code]
Well I understand you a leftist but besides that have you lost your mind completely Senter? Have you ever been in Cuba Senter? Or you just heard it from your liberal propaganda ak as fake news?
I wil give you this time a benefit of doubt and assume you made a joke, because the only "cutting edge " about Cuba is their fat cigars which of course you cutting it's edge before smoking lol.

It is actually the right that lives on fake news. But here, try this for information on medical treatment in Cuba, since you don't keep up with such things.
http://bit.ly/2fsCjCg

Senter when reading this kind of propaganda, did ever cross your mind to maybe check the origin of those articles and who exactly stays behind them? For your info these are the same people who propagate themselves.
(As if that would do any good) I'm referring you to this article as spark of truth. Maybe it will get your attention if not convincing.
https://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/20/shock-report-cuba-is-not-the-medical-paradise-advertised/

LOL!!!! HOT AIR!!!! And you chastise me for posting "propaganda" which is mainstream media news. LOL!!!

"Expat" is lefty propaganda? Reuters? Wikipedia? Quora? LOL!!!!

It's the same old story of righties being so extreme today that they only accept extreme wingnut sites as being "valid".

I hate to school you Senter, But republicans for decades never move 1 inch to the right. If there was eve any shift, they moved to the left, where democrats were during Kennedy era.
It was Democrats who drastically moved more to the left, so far left, that it appears to them as if right is very far away.