Socialism is evil, but we have to ask why is socialism so appealing to people with lower assets?

[Scott Downey]

I have my own thoughts on why and they involve feelings of hopelessness and fear of the future as well as covetous envy.
But socialism-communists will not deliver the goods.
You wont find answers there to hope and a better future

Historically the opposite, for a close by example look at CUBA

MSN

Vice President JD Vance dissects the threat of socialism, how the Trump administration is protecting American manufacturing and more on ‘The Ingraham Angle:'

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS: So, Abdul El-Sayed was outspent, like, 9-1 in Michigan, but he still edged out a victory over Haley Stevens. What does this tell us?
VICE PRESIDENT J.D. VANCE: Well, I think it says a couple things. First of all, the base of the Democratic Party just wants radicals. It wants these DSA types.
It wants people who hate even the idea of private property ownership. But it also, I think, tells us that that particular set of ideas is very popular in places you wouldn't expect, because El-Sayed, he's this guy who holds himself out as a working-class hero, as a guy who's going to fight for the working class. How does he fight for the working class?
By flooding his state and his country with low-wage immigrants. Of course, those people will drive down the wages of the working class. And he also doesn't want to do anything to protect the Michigan auto industry.
He has fought against the Trump tariffs that have saved the Michigan auto industry. So, interestingly, as much as the media will pull this guy out as a socialist, as a guy who's trying to stand up for the working man, where did he do the best? He did the best among wealthy white liberals and among new immigrants to the United States of America.
He basically represents the modern democratic coalition, which is self-hating white liberals united to people who just came to the country for the first time and don't actually have the sense of appreciation for it that they should. Those are the people who are voting for El-Sayed. He doesn't have a constituency among the working class he pretends to represent.
INGRAHAM: No, he won the working class enclaves last night. And he actually won the more affluent, more highly educated sections of the state. What does that tell us about education in the United States, especially at the university, college and high school level?
VANCE: Well, I think what it tells us is that a lot of young Americans were sold a whole promise at the elite universities in our country. And that promise is that they were going to be able to go to college, get a degree and everything was going to work out fine for them. I think in reality, actually, a lot of universities sold these kids a bill of goods.
They gave them a lot of debt. They did not give them useful skills or a useful credential. And a lot of these kids are very angry.
But that really is, if you look at the data, Laura, the base of the Democratic Party today is downwardly mobile, hyper-progressive, well-educated people. People I think who were sold a bill of goods by universities have a lot of debt, but not a good job to show for it.
INGRAHAM: But they say they can't afford a home. The average home ownership is up to like 42 years of age. You know, 10, 15 years ago, it was much lower.
There's concern about the cost of living, still high energy prices, 100 bucks to fill my tank today. What does the Republican Party, specifically the administration, need to do better on that front? Because there are real strains out there.
VANCE: Well, I think that what it shows is that the past 40 years of economic policy, bipartisan economic policy, have failed. I think a lot of people look at El-Sayed or a lot of these other radical candidates and they say, socialism is evil. They're right.
Socialism is evil. But we have to ask ourselves the question, why is socialism so appealing to a lot of people who, to your point, have lower assets, who don't have the same ownership, who went to universities and were sold a bill of goods? They got a lot of debt, but they didn't necessarily get the good jobs that came along with that high debt load.
And I think our answer to that, and by the way, we've already seen a lot of it in the Trump administration, is number one, protect American manufacturing. The manufacturing economy is the foundation of the middle class. We see this in Europe.
We saw it in the United States. Every country that sells its industrial base to the highest foreign bidder loses its middle class and sees socialism come on the back end. What I think is actually going to happen is these socialist candidates, they've caught the tail end of an economy that wasn't working for most Americans.
Unfortunately for them, the Trump economy has made long-term investments in rebuilding that manufacturing base and making America energy independent and actually making it possible to own a home, to have a family, to build the real elements of middle class life again.

 

[Debp]

People get drawn in by the promise of freebies. But someone has to pay for it. The rich often own companies so they provide jobs and they buy and stimulate the economy. And once Socialists/Communists get into power, they live quite well, unlike the masses below them.

 

[shepherdsword]

Socialism is evil, but we have to ask why is socialism so appealing to people with lower assets?​

I give you three guesses and the first two don't count....lol

 

[quietthinker]

Socialism is evil, but we have to ask why is socialism so appealing to people with lower assets?​

I guess judgement of others and low self esteem must be the cause of folk not wanting to be social!

 

[Wrangler]

covetous envy

Bingo.

Communism appeals to the sinful susceptible to coveting. It always begins with promisee of free health care and always ends with people dumpster diving for food.

Communism also appeals to those ignorant of economics, justice and human nature.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Socialism works wonderfully in Norway.

It works because they care about their own people.

Norway never abolished private property, markets or successful businessmen. What it did was refuse to let banks, billionaires and multinational corporations become more powerful than the nation itself... as the United States has done.

When Norway discovered enormous oil wealth, they didn't hand it over to a handful of financiers and hope some crumbs eventually trickled down. The state kept control of strategic resources, captured much of the wealth for the public, invested it for future generations and built one of the largest sovereign wealth funds on Earth.

They have universal healthcare, strong unions, substantial public ownership, strict financial regulation and taxes on large fortunes and the country has not collapsed into communist starvation.

Because that was never the real choice.

The choice was whether capital would serve Norway or Norway would serve capital.

Norway chose correctly.

America chose satanic Wall Street.

We allowed banks to become “too big to fail,” corporations to buy political influence, private interests to strip productive industries for parts, healthcare to become a financial extraction machine, housing to become an investment class, and ordinary Americans to spend their lives paying usury interest to people who already possess more money than they could spend in twenty lifetimes.

Then, after creating that grotesque arrangement, we have the nerve to look at a young person who cannot afford a house, healthcare or children in the U.S. and tell him his problem is that he is jealous of rich people and wants “free stuff.”

And all of this is happening while the United States barrels toward $40 trillion in national debt and is already spending more than $1 trillion a year just servicing the interest.

Think about how absurd that is.

We built an economy around debt, usury and financial extraction, handed enormous power to banks and creditors, buried the nation itself under mountains of interest-bearing debt and now the interest bill is becoming one of the largest expenses in the federal budget.

So while America lectures places like Norway about the supposed dangers of “socialism,” Norway accumulated national wealth for future generations while America accumulated nothing but debt for its people.

Norway kept capitalism as a servant. It kept the wolves of Wall Street at bay.

America ignored God's warnings about greed, usury and the love of money, and allowed money to become the master.

And now the 70 year-old brainwashed servants of that system are lecturing a new generation of Americans who are coming of age unable to afford homes, families or basic security, all while inheriting tens of trillions in national debt, about the virtues of the satanic plantation they were handed.

And then pretending the way it's done in the U.S. is somehow good for the people..

ROFL.

Maximum comedy.

 

[lforrest]

I don't believe the answer is so simplistic as to rely on want and envy to secure support. Often the wealthy are also socialist and it is economically to their detriment.

Socialism grows like a fungus in cold damp spaces with excess. Universities being the best example. Professors and students are insulated from the harsh realities of this world, dictating morality from their soapbox.

 

[amigo de christo]

People get drawn in by the promise of freebies. But someone has to pay for it. The rich often own companies so they provide jobs and they buy and stimulate the economy. And once Socialists/Communists get into power, they live quite well, unlike the masses below them.

Actually this is true . What is the problem , MAN has always been the problem .
WHO is the answer , JESUS IS .
People want free stuff . But these people do not understand
that WHEN the system comes to power
THE very POOR they promised free things to that helped get them in power
OH it was never for the poor . This people gonna suf fer .
JUDAS . WHO was JUDAS iscariot . The betrayer of JESUS .
And what DID HE say about the highly expensive perfume .
WHY i b eleive he said , WHY was not this sold and then the monies could have been GIVEN , redistributed to the poor .
ONLY JUDAS didnt say it cause he CARED for the poor . NOR DO THEY .
HE said it cause HE HELD THE BAG , as WILL THEY .
They do not love thee , they do not love me , they do not love and care for humani tee .
ITS THE POWER , ITS THE MONEY , ITS THE CONTROL they desire .

 

[amigo de christo]

I don't believe the answer is so simplistic as to rely on want and envy to secure support. Often the wealthy are also socialist and it is economically to their detriment.

Socialism grows like a fungus in cold damp spaces with excess. Universities being the best example. Professors and students are insulated from the harsh realities of this world, dictating morality from their soapbox.

Often the very wealthy are SOCIALIST .
You had that RIGHT ON my friend .
SO why would they so desire this
Because they LIKE JUDAS iscariot , KNOW something .
THEY beleive SOMETHING .
WHY w ould a man like geroge sorros who pratically made a lot of money by doing massive harm to people
Ever want to SUPPORT a system he and they say WILL be FOR THE POOR .
I Will tell us why .
WHY did judas iscariot make such a huge ado about that fragrance .
WHY did he make the cry , WHY could this not have been sold and then the money
given to the poor . OH ITS THE SAME reason these globalists SAY such a thing .
HE said this NOT because HE cared for the poor , NOR DO THEY ,
HE said it cause HE had control over the bag , HE was covetoues .
THEY DO NOT DO for the people . THEY do not love thee , me , or humani TEE
THEY WILL HOLD THE BAG and SIT OVER THE SYSTEM .
THIS IS ALL about POWER and CONTROL . And they have ZERO idea
satan is using them all to BUILD his own empire and system which HE will give to the beast .
The hour of our betrayal is at hand . And by means of the POWERFUL and HIGHLY OPERATIONAL
AI DIGITAL SYSTEM , WILL CAUSE the worship of his INCLUSIVE god , WHOM MANY NOW SEE as GOD
but is SATAN .

 

[quietthinker]

Socialism works wonderfully in Norway.

It works because they care about their own people.

Norway never abolished private property, markets or successful businessmen. What it did was refuse to let banks, billionaires and multinational corporations become more powerful than the nation itself... as the United States has done.

When Norway discovered enormous oil wealth, they didn't hand it over to a handful of financiers and hope some crumbs eventually trickled down. The state kept control of strategic resources, captured much of the wealth for the public, invested it for future generations and built one of the largest sovereign wealth funds on Earth.

They have universal healthcare, strong unions, substantial public ownership, strict financial regulation and taxes on large fortunes and the country has not collapsed into communist starvation.

Because that was never the real choice.

The choice was whether capital would serve Norway or Norway would serve capital.

Norway chose correctly.

America chose satanic Wall Street.

We allowed banks to become “too big to fail,” corporations to buy political influence, private interests to strip productive industries for parts, healthcare to become a financial extraction machine, housing to become an investment class, and ordinary Americans to spend their lives paying usury interest to people who already possess more money than they could spend in twenty lifetimes.

Then, after creating that grotesque arrangement, we have the nerve to look at a young person who cannot afford a house, healthcare or children in the U.S. and tell him his problem is that he is jealous of rich people and wants “free stuff.”

And all of this is happening while the United States barrels toward $40 trillion in national debt and is already spending more than $1 trillion a year just servicing the interest.

Think about how absurd that is.

We built an economy around debt, usury and financial extraction, handed enormous power to banks and creditors, buried the nation itself under mountains of interest-bearing debt and now the interest bill is becoming one of the largest expenses in the federal budget.

So while America lectures places like Norway about the supposed dangers of “socialism,” Norway accumulated national wealth for future generations while America accumulated nothing but debt for its people.

Norway kept capitalism as a servant. It kept the wolves of Wall Street at bay.

America ignored God's warnings about greed, usury and the love of money, and allowed money to become the master.

And now the 70 year-old brainwashed servants of that system are lecturing a new generation of Americans who are coming of age unable to afford homes, families or basic security, all while inheriting tens of trillions in national debt, about the virtues of the satanic plantation they were handed.

And then pretending the way it's done in the U.S. is somehow good for the people..

ROFL.

Maximum comedy.

Well said!

 

[lforrest]

Actually this is true . What is the problem , MAN has always been the problem .
WHO is the answer , JESUS IS .
People want free stuff . But these people do not understand
that WHEN the system comes to power
THE very POOR they promised free things to that helped get them in power
OH it was never for the poor . This people gonna suf fer .
JUDAS . WHO was JUDAS iscariot . The betrayer of JESUS .
And what DID HE say about the highly expensive perfume .
WHY i b eleive he said , WHY was not this sold and then the monies could have been GIVEN , redistributed to the poor .
ONLY JUDAS didnt say it cause he CARED for the poor . NOR DO THEY .
HE said it cause HE HELD THE BAG , as WILL THEY .
They do not love thee , they do not love me , they do not love and care for humani tee .
ITS THE POWER , ITS THE MONEY , ITS THE CONTROL they desire .

The ultra wealthy, yes. But those with a more positive view of people will be more likely to attribute poverty to someone's circumstances rather than the person. Socialism operates on that assumption and tries to rectify the inequality.

Such people would also be unlikely to believe in the doctrine of total depravity.

 

[Scott Downey]

My view on socialism in most countries is it makes everyone of the same low status cause it punishes private initiative, and everything flows to the lowest levels of human existence. I think China is not socialist, but places like Cuba and N Korea are. And I realize it is more complicated than this.

Lenin viewed socialism as a transitional stage whose ultimate goal is the establishment of communism, a stateless and classless society.​

Socialism as a Transitional Stage​

Lenin considered socialism not as an end in itself but as a necessary step toward communism. Under socialism, the working class gains control over the means of production, wealth is redistributed, and social inequalities are reduced through nationalization of industries, provision of social services, and protection of workers’ rights socratic-method.com+1. The socialist state is tasked with dismantling the economic power of the bourgeoisie and large landowners, as seen in early Soviet policies such as land redistribution and nationalization of factories and banks Marxists Internet Archive+1. Socialism, in Lenin’s view, creates the conditions for the eventual emergence of a society where class distinctions and the state itself are no longer necessary.

 

[Debp]

Socialism works wonderfully in Norway.

Norway is a Capitalist Social Democracy, not Socialism. They also have a very high tax rate to pay for the social programs.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Norway is a Capitalist Social Democracy, not Socialism. They also have a very high tax rate to pay for the social programs.

You apparently stopped reading after the first sentence.

I specifically said Norway never abolished private property, markets or successful businessmen and that yes, its a capitalist social democracy and thats precisely the point.

Norway kept markets while refusing to let capital completely dominate the state and turn it into a corrupt, three-ring satanic circus that crushes the public and buries it in debt like what we currently have in the U.S.

So simply leaning on the word “capitalist” while ignoring the enormous differences between Norway’s political economy and America’s is fantasyland. The entire argument is about what kind of capitalism you permit and whether capital serves the nation or the nation serves capital.

 

[Debp]

Socialism works wonderfully in Norway.

It works because they care about their own people.

Norway never abolished private property, markets or successful businessmen. What it did was refuse to let banks, billionaires and multinational corporations become more powerful than the nation itself... as the United States has done.

When Norway discovered enormous oil wealth, they didn't hand it over to a handful of financiers and hope some crumbs eventually trickled down. The state kept control of strategic resources, captured much of the wealth for the public, invested it for future generations and built one of the largest sovereign wealth funds on Earth.

They have universal healthcare, strong unions, substantial public ownership, strict financial regulation and taxes on large fortunes and the country has not collapsed into communist starvation.

Because that was never the real choice.

The choice was whether capital would serve Norway or Norway would serve capital.

Norway chose correctly.

America chose satanic Wall Street.

We allowed banks to become “too big to fail,” corporations to buy political influence, private interests to strip productive industries for parts, healthcare to become a financial extraction machine, housing to become an investment class, and ordinary Americans to spend their lives paying usury interest to people who already possess more money than they could spend in twenty lifetimes.

Then, after creating that grotesque arrangement, we have the nerve to look at a young person who cannot afford a house, healthcare or children in the U.S. and tell him his problem is that he is jealous of rich people and wants “free stuff.”

And all of this is happening while the United States barrels toward $40 trillion in national debt and is already spending more than $1 trillion a year just servicing the interest.

Think about how absurd that is.

We built an economy around debt, usury and financial extraction, handed enormous power to banks and creditors, buried the nation itself under mountains of interest-bearing debt and now the interest bill is becoming one of the largest expenses in the federal budget.

So while America lectures places like Norway about the supposed dangers of “socialism,” Norway accumulated national wealth for future generations while America accumulated nothing but debt for its people.

Norway kept capitalism as a servant. It kept the wolves of Wall Street at bay.

America ignored God's warnings about greed, usury and the love of money, and allowed money to become the master.

And now the 70 year-old brainwashed servants of that system are lecturing a new generation of Americans who are coming of age unable to afford homes, families or basic security, all while inheriting tens of trillions in national debt, about the virtues of the satanic plantation they were handed.

And then pretending the way it's done in the U.S. is somehow good for the people..

ROFL.

Maximum comedy.

You apparently stopped reading after the first sentence.

I specifically said Norway never abolished private property, markets or successful businessmen and that yes, its a capitalist social democracy and thats precisely the point.

Norway kept markets while refusing to let capital completely dominate the state and turn it into a corrupt,
three-ring satanic circus that crushes the public and buries it in debt like what we currently have in the U.S.

So simply leaning on the word “capitalist” while ignoring the enormous differences between Norway’s political economy and America’s is fantasyland. The entire argument is about what kind of capitalism you permit and whether capital serves the nation or the nation serves capital.

And you apparently used the wrong terminology.

You said:
"Socialism works wonderfully in Norway."

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

And you apparently used the wrong terminology.

You said:
"Socialism works wonderfully in Norway."

What do you call a nation that discovers vast petroleum reserves beneath its territory and decides that the resource wealth belongs to the people? Because Norway literally says its petroleum resources belong to society as a whole.

I just looked it up..

It imposes a 78% marginal tax rate on petroleum profits, directly owns interests in oil and gas fields, owns 67% of Equinor, and funnels the state’s petroleum revenues into a gigantic sovereign wealth fund for the benefit of present and future generations, including helping support future pension obligations.

At the end of 2025, that fund was worth roughly NOK 21.3 trillion.. about NOK 3.8 million for every registered person in Norway.

So see, they kept capitalism.

They just made dmn sure the Norwegian people owned a gigantic piece of the proceeds.

This is the type of thing that could’ve given Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney a heart attack.

So yes, I’m going to call policies like these socialist.

 

[markalan]

What do you call a nation that discovers vast petroleum reserves beneath its territory and decides that the resource wealth belongs to the people? Because Norway literally says its petroleum resources belong to society as a whole.

I just looked it up..

It imposes a 78% marginal tax rate on petroleum profits, directly owns interests in oil and gas fields, owns 67% of Equinor, and funnels the state’s petroleum revenues into a gigantic sovereign wealth fund for the benefit of present and future generations, including helping support future pension obligations.

At the end of 2025, that fund was worth roughly NOK 21.3 trillion.. about NOK 3.8 million for every registered person in Norway.

So see, they kept capitalism.

They just made dmn sure the Norwegian people owned a gigantic piece of the proceeds.

This is the type of thing that could’ve given Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney a heart attack.

So yes, I’m going to go with socialism here..

So socialists think fossil fuels are good?

 

[Wrangler]

Often the wealthy are also socialist and it is economically to their detriment.

This is the case with a former friend of 35 years from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. He considered it an expense, like insurance, believing socialism is the only reason people don’t revolt and take all his money.