The Millennial Socialists Are Coming
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In May, three young progressive women running for the state Legislature in Pennsylvania, each endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, won decisive primary victories over men heavily favored by the political establishment. Two of the women, Summer Lee, 30, and Sara Innamorato, 32, ousted incumbents, the distant cousins Dom Costa and Paul Costa, members of an iconic Pennsylvania political family.
Elizabeth Fiedler, 37, announced her run three months after giving birth to her second child, and she had a nursery in her Philadelphia campaign office so other parents could drop off their kids before canvassing shifts. Talking to voters, she spoke of depending on Medicaid and CHIP for her kids’ health insurance, and of the anxiety she felt during two weeks when their insurance lapsed.
Lee was open about the more than $200,000 in student loans that have weighed on her since graduating from law school, which gave her a visceral sense, she told me, of the “need for free, quality education for everybody.” (An African-American woman running in a largely white district, she ended up with 68 percent of the vote.) Innamorato spoke about how her father’s opioid addiction had pushed her and her mother from the middle class. “I’ve lived the struggles of my district,” she told me.
Elizabeth Fiedler, a first-time candidates who won in Pennsylvania's primary for state representative.
Tammy Bradshaw
for State Representative in her district in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jeff Swensen for The New York Times
Their races were part of a grass-roots civic renewal that is happening across this country, something that is, for me, the sole source of optimism in this very dark time. Marinating in the news in New York City, I’m often sick with despair. An authoritarian president of dubious legitimacy and depraved character is poised to remake America for generations with a second Supreme Court pick. The federal government is a festival of kleptocratic impunity. Kids the same age as my own are ripped from their migrant parents.
Summer Lee defeated a longtime incumbent for a State Senate seat, in her neighborhood of Swissvale, Penn.
Mark Makela for The New York Times
But all over the nation, people, particularly women, are working with near supernatural energy to rebuild democracy from the ground up, finding ways to exercise political power however they can. For the middle-aged suburbanites who are the backbone of the anti-Trump resistance, that often means shoring up the Democratic Party. For younger people who see Donald Trump’s election as the apotheosis of a rotten political and economic system, it often means trying to remake that party as a vehicle for democratic socialism.
Today, the victories of Lee, Innamorato and Fielder look like a portent. On Tuesday, a similar pattern played out on a grander scale in New York City, when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old democratic socialist, shook the Democratic Party by toppling Joseph Crowley, a 19-year incumbent, chairman of the Queens County Democratic Party and potential heir to House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Weeks before the election, Crowley’s own polling showed him up by 36 percentage points. Ocasio-Cortez ended up winning by 15.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old political newcomer
who upset U.S. Rep. Joe Crowley in New York's Democrat primary.
Seth Wenig/Associated Press
She did it the same way as the women in Pennsylvania — by mobilizing scores of volunteers and connecting with voters one-on-one. “There were folks on the ground there for months without any national attention, talking to people at the subway stops,” said Zephyr Teachout, a candidate for New York attorney general who endorsed Ocasio-Cortez in May.
Given the overwhelmingly Democratic makeup of her district, Ocasio-Cortez will almost certainly win the general election. Neither Lee, Fiedler nor Innamorato is facing a serious Republican challenger, so they are set to become legislators as well.
On Twitter, Trump has fantasized about a red wave that will sweep even more Republicans into power in November and reinforce his rule. But the real red wave may be democratic socialism’s growing political influence, especially among young people. “She really showed that you can run on these issues and win,” Maria Svart, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, said about Ocasio-Cortez’s platform, which includes Medicare for All, abolishing the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and a federal jobs guarantee.
The D.S.A., to which Ocasio-Cortez belongs, is the largest socialist organization in America. Its growth has exploded since the 2016 election — when, of course, avowed democratic socialist Bernie Sanders ran in the Democratic primary — from 7,000 members to more than 37,000. It’s an activist group rather than a political party, working with Democrats in the electoral realm while also agitating against injustice from the outside.
Many of the D.S.A.’s goals, reflected in Ocasio-Cortez’s platform, are indistinguishable from those of progressive democrats. But if the D.S.A. is happy to work alongside liberals, its members are generally serious about the “socialist” part of democratic socialist. Its constitution envisions “a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.”
Talk of popular control of the means of production is anathema to many older Democrats, even very liberal ones. It plays a lot better with the young; one recent survey shows that 61 percent of Democrats between 18 and 34 view socialism positively. The combination of the Great Recession, the rising cost of education, the unreliability of health insurance and the growing precariousness of the workplace has left young people with gnawing material insecurity. They have no memory of the widespread failure of Communism, but the failures of capitalism are all around them.
The D.S.A. alone neither claims nor deserves sole credit for the victories of candidates it endorses. Many groups came together behind Ocasio-Cortez, including the populist Brand New Congress and local chapters of the resistance group Indivisible. Nor was the D.S.A. the prime mover behind the Fiedler, Lee and Innamorato wins, though it helped in all of them.
Indeed, while there’s a lot of talk about an ideological civil war among Democrats, on the ground, boundaries seem more fluid. In Pennsylvania recently, I met with moderate suburban resistance activists who’d volunteered for Innamorato, thrilled to support a young woman who could help revitalize the Democratic Party.
Barry Rush is a 63-year-old retiree who used to vote for both Democrats and Republicans, but who, horrified by Trump, now devotes himself full time to a liberal group called Progress PA. His main concern is electing Democrats — “I’m gonna pull the Smurf lever till this gets fixed,” he says of voting blue — and he knows that the Democratic Party needs young people. He was heartened by all the millennials at Innamorato’s victory celebration: “There were 500 kids there!” he said. It gave him hope for his grandkids.
The young members of the D.S.A., meanwhile, are hopeful because their analysis helps them make sense of the Trump catastrophe. They often seem less panicked about what is happening in America right now than liberals are, because they believe they know why our society is coming undone, and how it can be rebuilt.
“The Trump disaster is that everyone feels threatened individually, and feels like they have to fight Trump and fight this administration,” Arielle Cohen, the Pittsburgh D.S.A.’s 29-year-old co-chair, told me as I sat with her and two other chapter leaders in a small coffee shop in the city’s East End. “And socialists are saying, this has actually been going on for a long time. It’s not just Trump. It’s not just who’s in office.”
There is a strange sort of comfort in this perspective; the socialists see themselves as building the world they want to live in decades in the future rather than just scrambling to avert catastrophe in the present.
Talking to Cohen and others from the D.S.A.’s Pittsburgh chapter, which has more than 620 members, I was struck by the work they put into building community. On some days that public schools are closed, the D.S.A.’s socialist-feminist committee puts on all-day events with child care and free lunches. Like several other chapters, the Pittsburgh D.S.A. holds clinics where members change people’s burned-out car brake lights for free, helping them avoid unnecessary police run-ins while making inroads into the community. A local mechanic named Metal Mary helped train them.
Democratic socialist chapters have constant streams of meetings and social events, creating an antidote to the isolation that’s epidemic in American life. “Everything is highly individualized, and it is isolating,” Svart said. “People are very, very lonely. Suicide rates have gone up astronomically. And we do create a community for folks.” This fusion of politics and communal life isn’t so different from what the Christian right has offered its adherents. Such social capital is something no amount of campaign spending can buy.
After Ocasio-Cortez’s win, Pelosi denied Republican claims that socialism is ascendant in the Democratic Party. It’s hard to blame her for being defensive, since for generations “socialist” was considered a slur, and it’s one that’s hurled at Democrats indiscriminately. But I think she’s wrong. There are more candidates like Ocasio-Cortez out there, and the Democrats should welcome them. It needs their youth and zeal and willingness to do the work of rebuilding the party as a neighborhood institution. And they’re coming, whether the party’s leadership likes it or not.
In Pennsylvania, unlike many other states, being a state legislator is a full-time job. When I met Lee a month after her victory, she was thinking about all she needed to learn once she gets to Harrisburg, the capital. But she was also confident that she and others like her are ready to remake the Democratic Party.
“If what we did here in Pennsylvania shows anything, it’s that we can do that,” she said. “We can go up against the establishment. We can support our own candidacies. We can run positive campaigns. We can do all that, and we can actually win. And then we can do it again, and we can do it everywhere.”
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
One of Big Business's considerable successes has been to attach great stigma to the word "socialist". This has been accomplished by tying the word to authoritarianism.
America is the only country in the world where people almost universally believe that socialism and authoritarianism are inextricably joined. Elsewhere, socialist parties participate in political life no differently than any other.
It's encouraging to observe that, at least in some places, Americans are catching up with the rest of the world.
It’s not authoritarianism that I dislike regarding these socialists it’s their ideological belief in socialism.
Often expressed as "collective ownership of means of production and distribution". As opposed to capitalism, which is "private ownership of means of production and distribution".
"Collective ownership" may be co-op or public, from local to national.
I would think that authoritarianism (if it were actually advanced by socialists) would be the problem. The ideological 'belief' is economic freedom.
These 'socialists' are essentially advocating social democracy. Ultimately not that different from the D platform: more regulated private sector (and taxation) to fund public services. They are not actually pursuing socialism (something that, realistically, they have no real chance of achieving).
Yes I am aware and I’m opposed to that. I would like less government involvement in the private sector and lower taxes.
"Politics is the art of the possible."
Collective ownership is the goal...,, but pragmatically, it's not coming tomorrow. Certainly not in the US. So improving the social safety net is the immediate objective.
That said, the co-op movement has some ten million employee-owners world-wide.
That’s silly.
Social democracy is the exact opposite of that. So I can certainly see your opposition to social democracy. If any of these 'socialists' actually tried to promote socialism they would basically accomplish nothing during their time in office. Thus I predict they will all focus on regulating the private sector and promoting public services such as universal healthcare. In other words, they will promote social democracy and point to aspects of the Nordic nations, U.K., France, etc.
If it were to evolve in the USA, it will not be seen by anyone living today (IMO).
And the goal is economic freedom - opportunity. Collective ownership is a means to that end.
Pretty much how I read it too. The new 'socialists' are in effect new 'social democrats'.
I think there may be a firmer skepticism of capitalism.
That would be good. At least if people would distinguish the good from the bad in what they think is 'capitalism'. Most seem to think that capitalism means free enterprise and equal opportunity. Both very good things. Yet they cannot seem to grasp the minority control aspect even though today it is at levels never seen in the past.
IMNAAHO, capitalism and democracy are antinomical.
If one deeply thinks about how things work ... Very uncommon.
Re-read. You've misunderstood.
But you still expect there to be police or fire departments responding at your door when you call. You expect there to be roads and bridges to get you to where you want to go, to and from work, to grocery stores and other capitalist shopping venues. You expect the military to protect your town, State and country from military foreign invasion. These are all socialist programs paid for collectively by tax dollars. They say you can't have it both ways, but that's the amazing thing about America, we can have it both ways. We can have socialist programs for the essentials while using capitalism for all other goods and services.
The debate isn't about should we be one or the other, being both capitalist and socialist has made us the envy of the world. The only debate is whether we should add more essentials like healthcare and higher education to the socialist "essentials" list or keep them on the non-essentials capitalist list. We already have healthcare on the socialist list for the elderly and disabled with Medicare, we just have to decide whether we want that basic minimum of healthcare coverage for all Americans. That's all these new "socialists" are suggesting, none of them are actually wanting to completely eliminate capitalism.
The fact is that even if you claim you'll never need healthcare and choose to go without insurance and the mandate is eliminated, the hospitals still have to treat you when an ambulance brings you in from a car accident or some other accidental injury. The EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment And Labor Act) signed by Ronald Reagan guarantees that. So it's not like you can say in America "I'll pay my own way and can choose to never use any healthcare/hospital or cost the tax payers any money" because you don't get to make that choice when you're unconscious after an accidental injury or car accident.
The total for "uncompensated care" was $40 billion (2010) a year before the ACA was instituted. After the ACA was begun the "uncompensated care" costs dropped by 50%. Of course if Republicans get their way by shredding the ACA they expect the uninsured number to increase by 20 million Americans boosting that "uncompensated care" number right back up with some estimates at around $80 billion a year by 2019. So we either repeal the EMATAL and let the uninsured die in emergency waiting rooms like we were a 3rd world country, or we figure out a way to pay for those who either choose not to buy insurance or simply can't afford it. That was the point of the ACA but obviously the Republicans are anathema to being "forced" to pay any taxes even though it's their lousy lives being saved by emergency rooms even when they vehemently refuse to buy insurance and spend their income on cigarettes and beer.
So yes, we'd all like lower taxes, but we also don't want to live like a 3rd world country without paved roads, water, sewer, power, police, fire departments, hospitals that will treat us regardless of insurance, a robust military and programs to take care of the elderly and disabled. The only way to achieve this is to compromise and accept socialism for those specific essentials and demand capitalism for all other goods and services.
You got it wrong when you say you still expect. Your views do not reflect my own. I’d like to see huge cuts in government spending.
I suggest that you keep re-reading that same text until you understand.
I wrote exactly what I meant. [delete]
"What do you think will happen if they abolish ICE and open our boarders to anyone that walks in"
That is not something I nor any progressive wants. I want strong border protections, but a boondoggle wall isn't the answer.
"free college"
Free 2 year local junior college tuition. This is one of the two main essentials that some logic minded persons believe is an essential that would be worth adding to the socialist list.
"$15.00 per hour jobs for everyone"
Better than guaranteed income programs.
"medicare for all"
We're paying far more right now for worse healthcare. A single payer system would SAVE billions, not cost billions. We're already paying more than any industrialized nation and getting worse outcomes than every other nation with a single payer system. So this is the other item logic minded Americans would add to the "socialist" list and be well worth it.
"gun control"
Banning assault rifles, large capacity magazines and adding universal background checks do not violate the 2nd amendment, everyone will still be able to get a gun for protection. Obama expanded gun rights contrary to what just about every conservative imagines. Again, NO ONE IS COMING TO TAKE ALL YOUR GUNS AWAY.
"radical climate change agenda"
We are already suffering the effects of radical climate change, so why shouldn't we have a plan to deal with it? Sticking your head in the sand doesn't solve the real problems we're already facing.
"please tell me how you pay for them."
If we cut back on the corporate welfare programs, spend just half of the $3.2 trillion we're already spending on private healthcare on a single payer system, put more money in the pockets of the low and middle income workers who are the most likely to spend that money domestically with a higher minimum wage, spend more on renewable energy projects that ultimately will cut costs while at the same time help the environment. It's possible to do all this for less than we're spending now while still maintaining the strongest military the world has ever seen.
Tax the rich until there are no rich anymore. Wonder how many more times we'll have to perform this experiment, putting a little more of this ingredient in and taking out a little of that until they get it just right? Capitalism has created the most wealth for the most people in the entire world than anything any other country has done. Once the government gets enough of the power ingredient that's when some of these useful idiots will start to wake up, but it will be too late then. The GDP of the USA is more than the GDP of entire European Union put together.
Strawman.
When you cannot argue against reality, just make shit up and argue against that!
What kills me is that I'm certain that you know, intellectually, that it's bullshit... but you say it anyway. You're lying in service to what you believe to be a higher Truth.
In fact, that's what most right-wingers are doing -- saying shit they know isn't true, but which fits the Leader's instructions.
... and then there are surely a few idiots who have completely lost sight of reality, and actually believe the BS you post.
Your own ignorance of the situation is the primary problem because like most conservatives you think that socialism mandates a government controlled economy of breadlines and 1950s era cars financed on the backs of the 5%. Fox News has you convinced that there is one variation of socialism and that us wacky proglibs somehow dream of Venezuela, when you could not be more wrong. We could have an intelligent discussion of the subject but when 2/3s of the country don't have even a basic knowledge of poli-sci or economics, that act is impossible. Any conversation inevitably ends up as liberals discussing the subject in a relatively intelligent manner while conservatives are jumping up and down screaming I will not live in Russia, North Korea or Venezuela!
Most of us idealistic liberwacks are discussing free market socialsm and yet you have not shown even the willingness to learn abiout that concept and how that is would not be an appreciable change from what we now have, except for the fact that employees would have more control over their job and not fear being outsourced. Google makes research laughably easily and yuou cannot even manage to do that.
One of Capitalism's greatest victories in America has been to brainwash the public into believing that Capitalism and free markets go together... despite all historical data and all economic theory going right back to dear old Adam Smith!
No corporation ever accepts willingly to play in a free market. A free market limits profits, because any high-profit sector automatically attracts new capacity, thus driving down margins.
So... no true Capitalist will ever submit to a free market. The automatic reflex is to collude on prices, to organize oligopolies, to fix "standards", to bribe the buyer, ...
A "free market" is the corporation's worst nightmare.
I think Schweickart's Economic Democracy is a great model (even though I would alter a few things, myself), but it's not the kind of thing that can just be implemented in an existing economy. It's not something we could just switch to. It's a completely different framework, especially with the way capital is handled. It's something that would have to be built from the ground up, starting small and then expanding as possible, just like Mondragon has done. And most importantly, with willing participants who wouldn't be actively trying to undermine it at every turn.
Incidentally, if Schweickart's model interests you, you might find Mondragon interesting as well. You may already be aware of it, but if not, then be sure to google around and read about it. It's not the same as Schweickart's model, but it's similar, and more importantly it actually exists. It's not perfect (they employ wage labor in places where they can't get cooperatives started, for one thing), but it's still quite an achievement. I think of it as a kind of proto-socialism, of the libertarian socialist variety.
By the way, I noticed this link in the blockquote:
I thought they pulled the plug on that site years ago. I'm surprised to see that link. Does it work for anyone? It doesn't work for me and I want to make sure I'm not the only one.
Thanks for the Mondragon idea.
I get a 404 code with the other link.
There's a lot of unfair criticism of it from certain camps of socialists who apparently think they want a perfect pie in the sky, so you may have to wade through some of the crap to find the articles about the really good aspects of it. I know Richard Wolff has written positively about it, and has a video or two on YouTube about it as well. If you can't find any of that then let me know and I'll try to dig it up for you. I am a huuuuuge fan of the Mondragon Cooperatives.
OK. Good. It's not just me. Where did you copy Schweickart's post from then?
I do not believe there is a model contrary to capitalism that could be switched to - literally. Is there any significant nation on the planet whose productive resources are not controlled by a minority? Seems to me changes wherein the people collectively control the productive resources will be a matter of evolution and on the scale of: feudalism -> mercantilism -> capitalism -> < new-name >-ism. Variations on capitalism (e.g. social democracy) which involve mere changes in law and relatively tame changes in how people think will (IMO) dominate the foreseeable future (our lifetimes). Fundamental changes (e.g. Economic Democracy) in the economy and what the public understands and also desires will be a long time coming (or maybe never at all).
As it stands now, relative to public understanding and desire , not only are most people in the USA unaware even of the concepts of models such as Economic Democracy, they will not even try to learn about them. As you know it is both funny and sad watching people toss out the USSR, Venezuela, Red China, as the exemplars for socialism with a level of depth that can at best be called surface hype / superstition. Then others claim that public services is what defines socialism. Others think it means control economy vs. market economy. Others think socialism is equivalent to authoritarian rule with expropriation of industry and even personal property, .... And then we have those who think it means equal results where everyone has the same type of car, house, clothes, food, etc. and of course all make the same amount of money. The variations seem endless.
Human beings are sometimes very silly creatures.
Me either. Not peacefully, anyway.
Not that I'm aware of, and history makes it quite clear that controlling social minorities never just willingly walk away from their wealth and power.
I think so too. New ways of doing things on a societal scale have to start small, be seen as a better idea by others, and then adopted by others. It's only after something spreads around enough to become the predominant way things are done that we can point to a whole society and say, "There's something new, a different kind of society than before."
I agree that variations on capitalism will dominate our foreseeable future, but I'm not so sure that the variations will keep on being social democratic reforms. I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but we are seeing a rise in the popularity of regressive right-wing movements in the West, and they never seem to be too fond of social democratic reforms.
What was it Marx said again? History repeats first as tragedy, then as farce?
I hope like hell we aren't about to see a repeat of the last major rise in destructive, vengeful far right malevolence (aka fascism).
And some actually seem to believe it, as evidenced here and in pretty much every other post in which the dreaded 's' word is mentioned.
Gotta say, it is insulting as hell to describe something about as far from, say, North Korea as one can get, and then instantly be accused of advocating for something exactly like North Korea.
It's just so tiring.
As you know, that one drives me nuts.
I know. Endless is right. It's like they take every last bad thing they can think of and roll it all up into that one 's' word (sometimes the 'c' word as well), no matter how contradictory their various points might be, or how many times a person tries to be specific in clarifying that [insert authoritarian nightmare of choice here] is simply not what they're talking about.
Ugh. It's frustrating as hell.
Silly is a bit too kind for some.
No... and I doubt there ever has been, right back to the tribes who roamed the savanna.
So... we really should be concerned with "who are the minority who control the economy, and are their goals compatible with the well-being of the majority"?
In capitalist America..... the answers are depressing...
Some people are brainless idiots who were fed this pablum years ago, and have been spewing it back up ever since. But I'm not at all sure that they're the majority of the people who "never get this right".
In this as in so many topics, I think there is a conscious intention to muddy the waters, to prevent intelligent conversation. People who base their Truth on dogma rather than on facts must at all costs prevent facts from gaining popular recognition.
Much of what Team Red posts to NT is of this nature: intended to destroy constructive conversation, rather than to participate in it.
It's frustrating for those of us who would like to discuss and debate... but it takes two to tango.
Just as a little side note, overcoming that one particular aspect of all of human history is what the old term 'The Revolution' is supposed to mean. It would be the greatest and most significant of all sociological revolutions, ever. Things like the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution would pale a bit in comparison.
I wish someone would let Bernie Sanders in on that.
There have been revolutions... and always counter-revolutions...
Hmm. P2PF Wiki? Cool. I was unaware of that site.
And look, they have a page on Mondragon --
Awesome. I'll have to read that later.
*bookmarked*
Thanks!
Well, true in many cases, but I don't think 'THE' revolution will actually qualify as 'THE' revolution unless it sticks.
18 Brumaire!
At the very least, one should sit down some day over a cup of coffee and roll that question around in one's mind.
I cannot see the ultra-rich of America, who have gone to great lengths to ensure control of all the levers of control, leaving anything more than survival sustenance for their plebes. It'll take another few decades, but since they already control everything, it's really just a question of how fast they dare turn the screws. They have to avoid any revolt, obviously...
You can't change Socialism by putting "Democratic" in front of it. If the majority votes to steal someone else's money, IT'S STILL STEALING!
You aren't paying attention because it isn't stealing anything from anyone.
Agreed. One does not make a new concept by name alone. One needs to look at the underlying details ... understand the underlying concepts.
I agree that your statement is true. You need to describe the system you have in mind where the majority votes to steal someone else's money. Kind of like a democratic expropriation?
Socialism has never worked anywhere it's been attempted. Why should it be any different here in the US.
That’s an affirmation of faith, not a statement of fact.
Define "successful".
Define "successful" as used in your previous Comment.
So... According to this definition, capitalism has never been successful, since unequal benefits are intrinsic.
I'm trying to be sure we're on the same page semantically. I was surprised that you chose a definition that made capitalism "always unsuccessful".
You don't mean that you would define success differently for the two systems?
I'm trying to show you that an over-simplified question cannot be answered reasonably.
If you're looking for a conversation, then a closed question is a bad way to start. If you are just looking to score points, though, it's pretty good.
Eventually, you show that you are only interested in scoring points.
But... that doesn't interest me...
He did the same to me when it was obvious he was losing the argument. Threw up that stupid "bye" emoji and ran away. I don't think liberals can operate without stupid emojis.
Trolling. Can't or won't give a coherent or logical answer.
Social Security is still wildly popular in America since its inception in 1935. It's been working and has worked and will continue to work as long as we choose to fund it.
Medicare is also extremely popular, especially among recipients.
Welfare has helped millions of families survive and with Welfare fraud being as low as 3% isn't it worth helping the 97% who did really need it in spite of the 3% who are taking advantage of tax payers? And the facts show that "when the lens shifts to political ideology, the survey finds virtually no difference in the share of conservatives (57%) , liberals (53%) or political moderates (53%) who have been assisted by at least one entitlement program .".
So even a majority of the supposed anti-socialism conservatives have been helped by an entitlement program. These programs are working. There are far more people who fall on hard times, use assistance for a short time to get back on their feet, and then get off assistance than there are those who fall and choose never to get up again.
"Of the one-in-five Americans who participated in a program like Medicaid or food stamps from 2009 through 2012, the Census Bureau reported this week , 56 percent stopped participating within 36 months".
So I disagree, socialism has been used in the US for nearly a century now and it mixed with capitalism has made us the envy of the world with the largest number of middle to high income consumers on the planet.
No. What happens between you and me is that I won't answer closed, loaded questions. If you want an exchange on a topic, any topic, I'll be happy to participate. That means give and take. That means taking the time to agree on vocabulary, criteria, and so on.
Would you answer "Have you stopped beating your wife?"? Of course not. It is unanswerable. It is crafted to be unanswerable.
I'm willing to believe that you don't see. But your being blind is not my problem. Here's a suggestion, though. If you formulate a question with the intention of proving something... it is wrong . A question should be for learning.
There's a lot of stuff on which you and I do not agree. So... we can each presume that the other is an idiot... and we'll never make the slightest progress... Or... we can each attempt to understand why the other thinks as he does...
Since we do not exactly trust one another (
), any such operation would require care and patience.
I am ready and willing to begin any time you are.....
No.
(And here we have a great example of non-dialog!)
Where was the last time that free market socialism was attempted?
Socialism ALWAYS works for a little while....until the money runs out. (Brazil and Venezuela)
Please show me that you can take part in a rational discussion of market socialism in a mixed economy that goes beyond jumping up and down and screaming NO, NO NO. I'd be happy if you could even comprehend a reasonable definition of free-market socialism.
When were either of those countries market socialist?
Venezuela expropriated the private sector (for the most part), introduced a command economy and basically engaged in full scale authoritarian rule. If someone were to be in favor of such a system then I would like to ask them to explain why.
Show me where free market and socialism coexist.
We already have worker-owned business in the US but they are not very common.
King Arthur flour is probably the most common.
This is a major employer in the city where my Grandparents lived.
I think we have it in the city of Detroit. It’s all socialists they elect in the city and it’s not been good for what’s left of the free market there. They almost completely destroyed it. If you get a chance watch the White Boy Rick documentary. It goes in depth on how corrupt the city is and how corrupt the police force is in the city. The mayor was actually ordering the cops to protect the criminals.
Are they? Cool. I'd already started buying their flour, just because they are very helpful with recipes and baking tips. Of course, I know that if they encourage folks to cook, they get more business, but they really seem to be a company that cares about the business they're in.
I guess it's how socialist country is defined..Would you consider Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, or Belgium socialist?
Many do and at the link is a list with a bit of background and each in it's own way is both socialist and capitalist.
Sorry, this shoud have been addressed to 96 not to you esistte.
I love their bread flour. Their AP has too high a protein content and verges on being bread flour, which makes for tough cookies or pie dough. They won't sell their Round Table pastry flour in less than 50lb bags. I'd buy it in 10lb bags if they would offer it.
I love their catalog.
Penzeys and Sur LaTable are good, if a bit overpriced.
It's encouraging to observe that, at least in some places, Americans are catching up with the rest of the world.
Maybe. But then there's this:
Weeks before the election, Crowley’s own polling showed him up by 36 percentage points.
So its quite possible that with such a huge lead many of his supporters didn't bother to turn out to vote-- his victory seemed assured.
So I wonder if we can read to much into this...at least for now.
(Maybe in a few years. Recently I've gotten to know quite a few people in their 30's, some even younger.And almost all of them are very liberal-- so many younger folks seem to have views similar to Ocasio-Cortez'. ("Democratic Socialists").Within a few years as there are more and more of them, they will probably cause a shift in many elections.... even as the people Trump puts on the Supreme Court will keep that body pretty right-wing for many, many years to come...)
If the country isn't a fascist police state by then...
That's why we are working hard to keep far left loony liberals out of office.
What we are seeing in today's millennial is the same we saw of the same age group in the 60s and 70s, many who may post here today. When they were young, they were OK with burning their bras, dropping acid non stop and spitting on our soldiers as they came back from Vietnam. As most grew older, got good jobs, married and had children and had to begin to pay bills, they began to understand the concept of personal responsibility and began to embrace the conservative ideology. The leftovers post on obscure websites and think their message reaches millions and that they are heard.
Today's millennial is no different. They will age, marry and begin to understand personal responsibility. The rest will continue to post on obscure websites thinking people actually listen to them.
There are two possibilities here:
- You have heard "far left loony liberals" from your Trusted Sources (such as Fox News). You are a Fox True Believer TM , and therefore you accept Fox's word for it, unthinkingly,
- You know the label is nonsense, but Tribal Truth requires you to say it.
The fact is that the new generation of "farther left" young people is anything but crazy. Their most controversial propositions are less risky than policies that the GOP has already set into law .
Or to put it another way bugsy, when I was young, [deleted]
Wisdom for the ages...
Funny, I am the opposite.
When I was young I thought they were smart.
Now I think their hearts are dead.
Nope....what I stated was correct. You? Not so much. Liberals today will turn to conservatism much like most libs in the 60s and 70s. Those left over will bitch and moan about a duly elected President and all of the good things that are happening to this country.
Maybe some people just dropped a little too much acid in the day, or smoking way too much weed today.
So its time to stock up on food and perishables is what you are saying.
In the 1950s, Venezuela was about as prosperous as West Germany. Then the socialists came and now Venezuelans are lucky to eat garbage.
Yes, Sean. I think you should do that.
Don't forget the TP! I hear there is a huge shortage of that in Venezuela too.
Why do so many conservatives think that Venezuela is the goal of progressive thought? That claim is your first problem. You somehow have an intellectual block that doesn't permit you to understand that market socialism and civil libertarianism can coexist easily.
It's not the goal, it's the inevitable result of a command economy.
Apparently you don't understand what I am saying because a market economy is the opposite of a command economy. Your own ignornce is the problem because you automatically assume that socialism means a command economy.
Is this clear enough for you?
I told her the same thing a few days ago...
but ya know how socialists /anarchists are... the sophist argument all the way.
have you heard of a "sophist argument? clever, tricky and meant to deceive.
my fav example is. (remember this?)
if the govt can force you to buy auto insurance they can force you to buy health insurance.
of course, they left out that auto insurance is a state law and the aca is a federal law
result?
predictably the supreme court ruled no on the "commerce clause power grab" and made it a simple tax which they could not even collect by force.
in short... these people are not stupid. they are clever and tricky, they are not out to learn anything, they are out to impose a failed ideology and the only way to do that? is the sophist argument.
once recognized? the sophist argument is easy to crack - they always start with a false premise.
Cheers
We all need health insurance at some point in our lives. Do you understand that the more people who are in the risk pool the cheaper the coverage cost is for all of us? If you don't have insurance and get seriously sick then who pays for your care that the Drs. are required to provide? Do you think that you should be able to skip out on the $100K+ bill and force others who do have insurance to pay your way because you refused to be a fiscally responsible adult and have medical coverage?
Do you also think that you should be able to go without car insurance because you are convinced that you are a good driver?
You are projecting again because you love strawman arguments.
not the point... regardless of EVERYTHING you may say on this subject and regardless if I agree or not?
the federal government does not have the power to force people to buy ANYTHING under the commerce clause.
state govts do have the power (see auto insurance)
nothing you can say is going to be a new idea or notion to me...
I have heard it all before and have been on this planet way too long to fall for the bs.
but hey. take another crack at it if ya like.
honestly your best bet?
use that bs on the youngsters... they have no depth of education and are more likely to fall for your tricks
this is why the left targets college kids - stick to what works - just sayin.
Cheers
Yep, it sure did! 3% here 7% there....adds up.
Thank God Obamacare is now repealed, we can get back to a choice in our insurance.
By the way, did you see about two weeks ago the insurance industry put out the notice that premiums were going to rise 19%-30% this year?
Where is that Trump policy that was supposed to replace Obamacare "at a fraction of the cost" (Trump)?
those premiums are going to rise because trump killed the subsidies from taxpayers to those insurance companies.
we do not fund corporate losses.
the dems put that law in place and now everyone will pay extra while it is cleaned up. not trumps fault.
when the dems are ready to actually help fix things and repeal obamacare in full? let us know k?
after the law is repealed the insurance companies will be able to lower their prices again... but not until then
my strawman arguments, as you call them are backed with history, fact, and a lifelong obsession of study in political science, sociology, and anthropology.
to know my enemy?
I have studied, among other things, alinsky and the cloward-piven strategy
alinsky was a smart idiot. however, cloward-piven? very dangerous stuff.
hint: I am a fairly "crafty" fellow and I can see all of your bs coming from a mile away.
Give us examples of where this has worked really well.
I'll gladly grant your request.
Employee-owned businesses, credit unions and worker-consumer cooperatives of various types.
In your mind you are convinced that I am lying to you and I won't tell you about some massive change to an authoritarian form of government that you believe that I support, but you could not be more wrong. What TiG and I have in mind is merely a fine-tuning the current system to give more power, economic stability and higher wages to employees and increase the interdependence of society. The biggest problem is your ignorance of basic economic concepts. Your own ignorance creates a fear of change because you do not understand what the future might be.
Fox News and other conservative media outlets treat their viewers/readers like mushroom spore, to be kept in the dark and fed a steady die of BS, when you should be finding a news source that tells you the truth instead of just reinforcing your currently held biases. There is a place for opinions is news but it is definitely not a replacement for a the media first broadcasting the facts of the situation in question.
Name me one country with a successful healthcare system based on capitalism. Include costs and benefits to consumers. I dare you.
Those high risk pools were very expensive and the treatment limited. They were created to protect the profits of for-profit insurance companies. What did Obamacare take away from you?
sorry... I am not playing the sliding conversation game today.
but our healthcare is as good or better as any in the world.
only our insurance/payment system is fuked up... thank obamacare for every current problem there.
if ya want to talk about that? write an article... I dare you.
do not expect any further replies here... Cya on another thread.
Cheers
The ACA fixed the problem but now the rates are going up again after Trump weakened the ACA. #more winning.
Medical treatment is useless if you lose your house in the process. That doesn't happen in countries with universal healthcare. What are you afraid of if we had universal healthcare?
That sounds like David Schweickart. I'm a big fan.
Your quote left out the third feature: Social control of investment, with funds generated via a permanent capital assets tax on businesses. Distributed on a regional, largely per capita basis (to promote even growth), ultimately funnelling down to local banks who grant it out to businesses (both existing and prospective) with input from the local community (town councils).
Businesses don't pay the invested money back, they pay the capital assets tax instead, which perpetually replenishes the investment fund.
That's his replacement for the private capital market. A public/socially-controlled, self-funding regenerative cycle. Not too shabby if you ask me.
Yes, it is.
Mine was going down but now they are headed back up because of Trump's attack on the ACA mandate.
Switzerland.
The fact is that is doesn't really matter who manages health insurance. There are examples of monolithic Publicly owned systems like the UK's NHS, two tiered public / private like France's system, and totally private as in Switzerland. Single-payer and multi-payer. All of them give significantly better results, for significantly lower costs (either personal or national) than the American system.
There's a very simple key: the insurer(s) take no part in medical decisions.
The first information that the insurer has about a medical act is the order (not "request") to pay. Consequences:
- There is no complicated, expensive process for "prior accord" for treatment.
- There are no legal costs for insurer refusal.
- The insurer cannot improve the bottom line by skimping on treatment.
- The only way to improve the bottom line is to improve administrative efficiency.
This is "duh!" territory.
The German social safety net, beginning with retirement benefits, goes back to that well-known radical-left firebrand, Otto von Bismarck in the (wait for it... ... ... 1880s) France's health-care system was created by another crazy leftist, Charles de Gaulle.
Why do Americans refuse to learn from systems that have been up and running for way more the half-a-century?
Yes!
This allows long-term decisions, rather than the short-term "immediate maximization of shareholder dividends" that guides capitalism.
China is eating America's lunch, precisely for this reason: far superior long-term prioritization.
That, and by attracting mountains of foreign capital by offering up hordes of comparatively cheap laborers to rest of the world, in a generally secure and stable political/business environment (i.e., relatively safe for investment).
I can never decide if it's funny or sad that 'Communist China' has become such a major player in the game of global capitalism.
China's capitalism is very different.
The Chinese government directs Chinese capitalism.
In America, it's the opposite: American capitalism directs the American government.
The individual mandate shouldn't have anything to do with your policy or cost if you are covered under a group policy. Your premium is going up because the cost of your care is going up.
The cost of the care is the same because nothing has changed.
We don't? So, you think the poor using emergency rooms as their primary doctor and those fees are just paid out of thin air?
We had people insured, premium rates were rising in single digit increments, emergency rooms were actually shutting down. Now we're back to funding corporate losses at hospitals and the insurance industry is going to cost customers 20% more on the conservative side. Just like before Obamacare.
You're just willing to pay a different corporate loss and what are you getting from it? At least with the ppaca costs were slowing, people had insurance, and everyone had more security of good health care.
You're correct, Trump didn't kill the ppaca, the Republicans held 80 hearings and votes defunding it little by little and then tried to say it collapsed under it's own weight.
The economic implosion coming....is Trump's and the Republican's fault. Just like during the Bush administration did, they ignored all the warning signs and said it was "just an adjustment" until the wheels fell of and they tried to blame everyone except themselves.
But still not all capitalism, they have a mix of public, subsidized private and private, and they have a mandate, which spreads the risks and costs over the entire country.
medicare falls under social services, not corporate welfare, and is not an example of socialism either.
do try to keep up.
According to the NYT :
Yes, of course there's a mandate. Anyone who has thought about universal health-care for more than thirty seconds understands that there must be a mandate, to maximize the risk pool. The people who want to eliminate the mandate are either fools or saboteurs.
thanks to the tax cuts... that mandate has already been eliminated and is now dead as a doornail.
but anyways..
easy.
It's hilarious...
Every other developed nation has universal health-care.
Everyone pays less... much less... than Americans.
Everyone lives longer than Americans.
... but Americans know more about health-care than anyone...
but anyways..
and that is not an example of socialism.
the constitutional approach was easy. and ignored.
(insurance companies did not like that... I wonder why obama caved to them?)
obama had the juice to do whatever he wanted at that time.
but obama only tried to fund the insurance companies into perpetuity instead.
Since you wanted to show how smart you are with your cocky response...
Medicare does not pay indigent care for uncompensated fees.
amp.usatoday.com/amp/445756001
The hospitals try to bill the customer and when that doesn't happen they bill the taxpayer from the feds not medicare.
Deleted,
And it did....lmfao at you.
But... but... but...
You don't mean to say that rates were skyrocketing before Obamacare?
You don't mean to say that the numbers show limpidly that the slope of rate increases flattened significantly because of Obamacare?
That can't be! It would mean that Obamacare succeeded... and that cannot be.
Dunning-Kruger is a platform of the GOP/TEAparty and the neo-Nazis in the White House.
That was the goal of the mandate to get more people in the pool and drive the overall costs down.
JFCoaS!
What was the rate of increase before and after the passage of the ACA?
It's not the goal, it's the inevitable result of a command economy.
And Trump is not trying to create a command economy????
Epistte has been consistently talking about a market economy all along. There just is no reasonable way that you could have missed that unless you have not been paying any attention to what she has written.
To wit, epistte speaks of a market economy and you tell her that a command economy is a loser. Epistte agrees that all command economies in the past have failed miserably and that a market based dynamic is the correct contemporary approach. Yet you are still pretending that she is promoting a command economy.
Nothing wrong with disagreement and impassioned debate - as long as it is honest.
Well... No.
The German economy under the strictly central-planning Nazis continued to produce right up until the collapse.
Why does Germany use a market economy today?
Thank you for that erudite defense. I am convinced that I write "market economy" but they read it is as a command economy because they have been brainwashed by conservative media to believe that socialism of any sort requires a near-dictatorial leader and a centrally planned and managed economy. My political beliefs border on left anarchy so why in the world would I support a powerful leader and a command economy? That just isn't logical, but they cannot admit that without also admitting that their argument is a virtual strawman army.
08 May of 1945 was quite the economic downer that their economy would not recover from.
I really doubt there is any serious attempt to formulate a logical argument. For the most part these 'discussions' are not much more than an endless stream of talking points and slogans. For example, if someone has mentally equated socialism with the system of the former USSR (and its variants) and responds to every point with 'no free market' or 'take my property' or 'authoritarian state' or 'equal results' and the like ..., then there really is no point offering any information - the understanding of the subject matter is no deeper than a slogan and the intent is to keep it that way. IMO of course.
deleted
Because Germany lost WWII. Regime change...
I would add that during WWII, much of America's economy also was centrally planned.
I've posted this before, but I think it's a decent recap:
I agree with you but my rose-colored idealism overrides my Ph.D. level cynicism.
Do you want the Cliffs Notes version of market socialism in a mixed eocnomy? The workers would own and have a strong voice in the businesses in an economy of both mixed socialist and capatalist businesses that are in addition to the usual services provided by all three levels of the government. Those socialist businesses would employ people who would themselves be capitalists.
Please Wiki employee-owned business before you reply to me with your next strawman.
Yes! That means she has been talking about a market economy.
Why did the new regime not adopt a command economy?
You have a different definition then for central planning / command economy. War-time economies are unsustainable.
Predominantly collective ownership of the productive resources in Sweden? If you had labeled this 'Social Democracy' I would concur.
That is a large factor of what caused the downfall of the pre-1995 Russian economy.
From the CIA World Factbook:
I know people like to call this 'European socialism', but it's not socialism. Lots of public services -- funded by capitalism -- do not negate the capitalism and turn an economy into socialism.
No one has ever been able to explain to me how an autocratic dynasty, essentially an absolute monarchy, with total control over a population as well as the means of production, comes anywhere close to the highly distributed, if not universal power sharing required for socialism. There is no 'social' control over anything in an autocracy.
The following definition of socialism was posted at the top of this discussion:
That's an acceptable definition, but does that sound like North Korea?
North Korea is not socialism. They are not the 'Democratic People's Republic' they claim to be. Not even close. Why does everyone keep letting them get away with that?
I blame Stalin, personally, and the big old crap he took on the entire philosophy of socialism. All of those shitty command economies that came after him tried to copy exactly what he did in the USSR. Every last one of them.
Enslaving an entire population under the command of a tiny social minority was never what socialism was supposed to be.
I'm not ranting at you, Bob. I'm just ranting in general.
It seems to me that we spend a lot of time looking for perfect examples of theoretical constructs. The Real World is messier than that.
America's economy was very much a planned economy during the war. All of the nation's heavy industry was re-oriented. Successfully.
You say that system is not sustainable, and I answer, "China!" China's government retains strategic control over the economy, deciding to favor some sectors and not others. Successfully.
I agree entirely. OTOH, between "supposed to be" and "real world", there's often a gap.
Who owns the means of production and distribution in North Korea? There are two radically different answers, depending on (sadly) semantics.
There is no "owner class", so one may easily argue that by default, ownership is collective.
Alternatively, we may set "ownership" to be a synonym of "control", and the ruling oligarchy becomes the "owner class". Shazaam! The problem then is that there are other cases where control and ownership are clearly not the same thing. In Nazi Germany, the ultra-rich retained ownership (and garnered immense wealth) despite government control.
Let us beware of semantics! Intellectually, we find it useful to classify and categorize. But the Real World is what it is, rather than a neat combination of a bit of each category. Each example we examine is imperfect. If we want perfect categories, we end up with one category per country... per epoch...
Are dogs and wolves the same species? Big debate. Been going on for a long time. The answer is of course determined by the definition of "species". Mother Nature does not bother...
Originally a fully centrally planned economy that has increasingly moved to a market-based economy. The trend in all these examples is from pure command economy to a hybrid by allowing market forces to operate.
As time goes on (and technology continues to improve) I can envision a reverse trend towards more of a command economy. But what I see currently is an inability of nations to produce an effective command economy (due to sheer complexity of the task). You offer examples of nations that started with a command economy and are currently hybrid or (for all purposes) solidly market economies.
I agree... up to this point.
The Chinese example - if we dare conclude anything from a running experiment - is that central planning is efficient at the strategic level, while supply-and-demand is efficient at the tactical level.
The state. But the state is not an organ of the people, it's an organ of the Kim dynasty.
Actually, I don't think that could be easily argued. I don't agree that the lack of an owner class among the general population means that ownership is collective by default. Not in the least.
Well, sure. Ownership is meaningless if someone else has total effective control over a thing. What's important is where the actual power is. In North Korea the people simply do not have power over the means of production they depend on for life, or much of anything else for that matter.
Oh, I agree. But looking at North Korea and realizing that socialism is not what's going on there shouldn't be a matter of semantics, should it? Not if we all agree that the people are effectively powerless, anyway.
Central planning has its best chance at success at the strategic level (where details are manageable and the decisions are major trends). The market forces by their very nature operate at the transaction level. So we certainly agree on the 'polarity'.
To me that is not what is meant by centrally planned economy or a command economy but I think we can see eye-to-eye on the concept.
Interestingly, socialism (proper) would have an element of strategic planning through democratic processes. For example, purposely focusing on renewable energy, safety, etc. The society would be making macro choices which gain them benefits in some areas paid for by lack of benefits in others. But that requires an enlightened, engaged public ... something that may or may not be on our evolution path.
Alternatively, we may consider it a metastasized deviant of socialism.
Let's beware of rejecting cases that don't please us.
Money is power, and economics is money...
Before our eyes, the US is morphing politically into a narrow plutocracy. Are we to the point where we must reject the descriptor "democracy" for America?
We must be careful not to let our hypothetical models control our image of the real world. History has seen quite a few examples (including North Korea) of socialism imposed "top-down"... and they've all (?) been victims of counter-revolutions. This is why opponents of socialism can so easily make generalizations about socialism - they ignore its genesis while dissecting its later life.
You rejected Sweden as an example of socialism because the people don't "own". But then you say that "control" is more important than ownership... and Sweden is a case where the people have considerable control over the economy... to popular advantage...
There is always tension between the political and economic spheres. Interference between two poles of power.
Let's use our hypothetical models to see more clearly. Observing the ways particular cases fit or don't fit, and why, and how they got that way... helps us understand the real world. But like zoologists and species... we must not forget that Mother Nature doesn't do political science...
Agreed.
Also agreed... sadly...
We may, but we shouldn't. People have been doing that ever since the Russian Revolution. Remember how some used to try to defend what had happened in the Soviet Union by calling it a degenerated workers' state, but still a workers' state nonetheless? We need to stop allowing that kind of intellectual balderdash to stand. I am perfectly fine with calling a spade a spade.
I don't reject the notion that North Korea is socialist because it doesn't please me, I reject it because it is patently absurd.
Not quite yet (representative democracy, anyway), but should our Rubicon ever be crossed and we end up with a dictator for life or something, like I said, I will be more than willing to call that spade a spade. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be the only one.
Sorry. I refuse to refer to NK as socialism. I also don't believe that socialism can actually be imposed "top down". Marx, Mr. Revolution himself, didn't even think that. Marx felt that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. This whole idea of having a few people lead a revolution and then install themselves as a new government who will then somehow create socialism for everyone else started with Lenin, and we've seen how that always turns out. Every time that happened, we got another one of those shitty command economies that simply gave the working class a new set of masters, a smaller and more powerful one than before (ultimately more corrupt as well), instead of actually liberating them.
I reject Sweden as an example of genuine socialism because the economic engine that actually pays for its welfare state is private capitalism -- individual owners of capital exploiting wage workers for profit. I can't call that socialism. Sorry. I'm just trying to be intellectually honest.
Perhaps you could explain why some feel such a powerful need to pretend that a capitalism-based economy is socialism? What's wrong with just calling it what it is: a mixed economy; a capitalist market economy combined with a robust welfare state? If it works well and people are happy, then it works well and people are happy. What gives?
I'm perfectly happy to anything by any name. They're just names.
What's important is to agree on the reality that is behind the names.
No, I don't think I'll answer that. I don't react well to summations.
Goodness. I wasn't trying to offend you.
Quick side note. I want to add a little addendum to something I posted earlier. I know it's two days after the fact but it's been bugging me. It's about the definition I quoted and referenced up in 2.3.66:
I described that as an acceptable definition for purposes of contrasting it with North Korea, but I should have called it a reasonably acceptable definition, barring the "or regulated" part.
Here's why: The "or regulated by the community as a whole" part is too broad and open-ended. A community as a whole could very well decide to regulate their economy in such a way as to produce any number of things, up to and including laissez-faire capitalism. That particular phrasing allows for multiple outcomes other than socialism, so it should not be included in a definition of socialism.
Sorry if my nitpicking is annoying. I can't help it sometimes.
Gotta get it right!!
Remember when the left always used this as a example of how socialism works? Of course they would never admit they were wrong.
No, I don't.
I don't remember that either. Do you know, epistte, ... I kinda sorta think that this is just more made-up BS...
Apparently, Fox News and TEAparty echo chamber have conservatives convinced that us secretive progressives are in love with Venezuela. Maybe this idea can from the mouth of the Oxycodone addict or Sean Hannity.
Well... you know... it does fit their narrative, so it must be Truth!
After all, Truth is whatever fits their narrative...
Circular reasoning, you say?
Meh!
So you found a video by a pair of wingnut snake-oil salespeople. Do you expect anyone to be impressed?
Yup.
When did John (Strawman) Stossel become a liberal or (gasp) a progressive?
Remember when the left always used this as a example of how socialism works? Of course they would never admit they were wrong.
Venezuela is not Scandinavia!
That's your problem that you are ignorant of history not mine.
deleted
Before you cry about the source do you really think CNN or MSN is going to write a article that exposes the left?
Intellectual malfeasance!
To prove what "the left" thinks, you've produced three persons, two of whom are personalities with no political standing whatsoever.
The third is Bernie Sanders. In his case, you truncated the excerpt from you own link!
So Bernie was speaking generally, not specifically... and “Who’s the banana republic now?” today gets a clear answer, "America!"
Real visceral. Yes, we need more attorneys, and every juris doctor hopeful should be funded by taxpayers.
The problem underlying all this talk of free everything for everyone, is that the supply of other people's money eventually runs out. There aren't enough really rich people to tax, and corporations will raise prices leading to spiraling inflation if saddled with usurious taxation.
Conservative strawman number 2. Socialists demand free stuff from the government.
The only people talking about getting free stuff from the government is conservatives when they get huge tax cuts and bailouts.
Referring to my previous post about closed, loaded questions... here's a great example...
To this question, I would simply answer "No." End of conversation, with nothing accomplished by anyone.
Try a slightly different form: "What do you think about Obama's $10 billion bailout of GM?" No in-your-face aggression, so I might answer:
"That's too complex a question for a short answer... but that bailout saved something like a quarter of a million jobs, at something on the order of $40 thousand per job. Wisconsin has recently inked a deal with Foxconn to give almost $5 billion in subsidies, to bring in three or four thousand jobs, plus many more second-tier jobs... Let's say 25 000 jobs in all. That's something like $200 thousand per job, or five times as expensive as for the GM-related jobs.
"Additionally, The GM bailout occurred at a time when the economy was falling like a brick. Losing too many jobs too fast. So paying to prevent losing those GM-related jobs was logical. The Foxconn deal is happening at a moment when the economy is adding jobs at a good rate, so the timing is much less obvious.
"I don't know whether the Foxconn deal will ultimately be beneficial for Wisconsin, but it's clearly much less necessary than was the GM bailout."
OK?
Open, friendly question... open, friendly answer...
Another great example of an aggressive question. You ask it the way the Bad Cop interrogates the suspect.
If you really want a dialog, you might try giving your own definition, to prime the pump.
OK.
I tried.
and you when your trying to take money from corporations to fund your democratic market- socialism
making your statement above? hypocritical to the very core.
but anyways...
I have been thinking on the market-socialism thing.
here is the return.
federal government = republic.
which does not have the power to do what you want, the supreme court will stop it.
state govts = democracy
your plan can get some traction here. states can tax corporations in their states to fund any project they wish.
Cheers
From the DSA website, and one of many statements of the same caliber. Sure, democratically planned and controlled by "well informed people". Translation, you peons will still be in the same boat. The well informed know what's best for you, only our goal is to put everyone in your boat. Psychological needs are met through an ethos fostering cooperation? Again, the "well informed" control your butt, much different than the hated capitalism. Those well informed control the production, and distribution. So, while all you laborers are grinding away for your predetermined share of the pie, you can all cry on each other's shoulders, as everyone is in the same boat, thus fostering ethos through cooperation. Don't think of it as a dead end job, think of it as character building. Psychological needs? Again, you don't know what you need, the well informed do, and you aren't well informed. Back in line.
Not immediate redistribution, because that would open everyone's eyes too quickly, allowing for a reversion. Progressive redistribution would increase the odds that realization would set in too late.
So... when you translate, you change the meaning 180°. I'd guess you don't get much work...
How exactly does that happen in free market socialism, Brainy Smurf?
When did I say that? I wasn't aware that I worked for you.
Please stop reading what you want to see, and instead read what I say instead.
It's not a change Bob, and you know it. You'll be hard pressed to get anyone to believe that the group of "well informed people" includes anyone other than the elites already at the helm, much less the idea that redistributing wealth, under the control of the well informed, is going to offer more freedom to the laborers. Control of production and fair distribution to securely meet the needs? Super! Who identifies what is fair? Never mind, the answer is there in the statement. The well informed decide all things. The term "democratically" is added in an attempt to give legitimacy to the statement. At the end of the day, this is promoting the same thing it is lambasting, control by a group of elites. Only, it has replaced corporations with well informed people, whoever the hell that may be.
Along the lines of one of your previous posts here, what is your understanding? I've offered mine. As an aside, if the DSA didn't want this to be received as ambiguous, then perhaps it should set out specifically who the well informed people are, or what ethos it anticipates would be fostered by cooperation. This generic statement is no different than me saying I get feelings when around my co-workers.
FYI...The best way to avoid a derogatory reference is to not make an uncomplimentary personal comment.
You shouldn't take umbrage over half a quote. Let me repeat what you did not:
You did the same thing with "well-educated people". You made a presumption, based on nothing but your prejudices. Discussion is pointless.
Discussion is pointless.
Well I won't argue that Bob, especially when you are equating your indirect personal attack with my questioning of the meaning of "well educated people." Not exactly apples to apples, but I'll leave you to it.
[deleted]
I'm not worried because most Socialists change their minds once they start working, making money, paying their own bills, and buying stuff. There were plenty of young Socialists back in the 60's-70's in America but they grew up (at least most of them did). Hell there was a time when everything I owned fit in or on top of my VW Bus and I lived wherever I parked which was usually in the parking lot of the VW Shop where I worked or at my favorite fishing hole, but while I may have looked like a Socialist I was just being cheap and Banking my money.
Do you have data to support that sweeping generalization?
........ Or are you just makin' stuff up?
That wasn't a summary, it was a paragraph explaining some differences.
But then again the right folks read headlines and articles up to the point where they think they can say "gotcha" .
Since you obviously didn't read the whole article there is no use discussing it with you.
Do try not being so obvious please?
"The Millennial Socialists Are Coming "
Sounds like a "Democrat" problem for sure.
Remember when the left always used this as a example of how socialism works? Of course they would never admit they were wrong.
Venezuela is not Scandinavia!