After Its Hard Left Turn, Will Democratic Party Officially Admit It's Socialist?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Progressives: The shocking primary victory of 28-year-old socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over Congress' No. 4, Democrat Joe Crowley, underscores what we have long noted: The Democratic Party is no longer a party of moderation, but a party of the extreme left. And it's moving ever faster and farther leftward with each election cycle.
The 57%-42% drubbing of Crowley looks like the death knell not just for his political career, but for that of his mentor House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Crowley, after all, was the hand-picked successor to Pelosi. He had outraised his far younger opponent by 10-to-1.
Ocasio-Cortez isn't a make-believe socialist; she belongs to the Democratic Socialists of America. And she had the backing of Bernie Sanders' "Our Revolution" political group.
"Our Revolution"? Do they want a civil war? It's a real concern. A new Rasmussen poll shows 31% of Americans think a civil war is likely soon, while 59% fear violence from Trump haters. That's scary.
And, by the way, Ocasio-Cortez is no fluke. She's part of a trend. Just look at who the leading lights of the Democrats are today. In addition to such progressive stalwarts as Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, their most vocal and visible leaders include far-left Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kristen Gillibrand, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris.
The House has so many far-left Democrats we couldn't list them all in an editorial. But they are numerous, and angry, pushing their side ever closer to violent confrontation.
Take Rep. Maxine Waters, an influential Democrat who had this to say about civility toward the political opposition: "If you see anybody from that (Trump) Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."
As the violent rhetoric ramps up, Trump officials (Sarah Huckabee, Elaine Chao, Jeff Sessions, among others) have been harassed in public places and at their homes, threatened with violence and even thrown out of restaurants because they work for this White House. It shows what the left really thinks of democracy.
Is this a preview of what America will be like under a Democratic administration?
Is this the future of the Democratic Party? Sure looks that way.
The party's base is itself increasingly far left. As a study last year by the American Culture and Faith Institute of adults 18 and older showed, 37% of adults said they "prefer socialism to capitalism." Most of those were self-described liberals.
"That is a large minority," wrote researcher and Executive Director George Barna. "And it includes a majority of the liberals — who will be pushing for a completely different economic model to dominate our nation. That is the stuff of civil wars. It ought to set off alarm bells among more traditionally-oriented leaders across the nation."
They already are pushing for a "different model."
In addition to embracing violence and the denial of such basic constitutional rights as free speech, freedom of religion and the right to protect oneself, much of the Democratic Party now embraces a spate of far-left ideas. These include such winners as open borders, Medicare for all (single-payer health care), unrestricted abortion, special "gender" rights, free tuition, government controlled housing, deep and dangerous defense cuts, a job-killing $15-an-hour minimum wage, a "guaranteed income" for all, and ever-higher welfare spending.
Meanwhile, the party's socialist-progressive wing, which now dominates, love-hugs all these ideas. And it's actively anti-capitalist.
Left Behind
Parts of this agenda of unbridled socialism show up in Democrats' official new policy blueprint called "A Better Deal." A better name would be "A Rawer Deal," because these ideas have been tried before and failed. As we've noted here repeatedly, there are no successful socialist countries. None. It's an unworkable, inhuman system that replaces individual rights and freedom with authoritarian control imposed from above, all in the name of "the people."
Americans have had their economic knowledge systematically dumbed-down by the media and the schools, from elementary school through university. Ask younger people whether they like socialism, and a majority now say yes. They've been trained to hate capitalism, and never lived under socialism. So they don't know it's the death of all they hold dear and the end to their individual dreams.
In addition, socialism is antithetical to democracy. A study in 2015 by MIT economist Daron Acemoglu and University of Chicago economist James A. Robinson suggests that democratic systems are the only way to thrive as an economy. "Our central estimates suggest that a country that switches from autocracy to democracy achieves about 20% higher GDP per capita over roughly 30 years."
It's shocking because there are so many examples of socialism's failures today — from Zimbabwe and North Korea to Cuba and Venezuela. No socialist nation thrives. Ever. Why would a major American political party embrace such failure and misery?
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
101 visitors
“Ocasio-Cortez isn't a make-believe socialist; she belongs to the Democratic Socialists of America. And she had the backing of Bernie Sanders' "Our Revolution" political group.
"Our Revolution"? Do they want a civil war? It's a real concern. A new Rasmussen poll shows 31% of Americans think a civil war is likely soon, while 59% fear violence from Trump haters. That's scary.
And, by the way, Ocasio-Cortez is no fluke. She's part of a trend. Just look at who the leading lights of the Democrats are today. In addition to such progressive stalwarts as Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, their most vocal and visible leaders include far-left Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kristen Gillibrand, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris.
The House has so many far-left Democrats we couldn't list them all in an editorial. But they are numerous, and angry, pushing their side ever closer to violent confrontation.
Take Rep. Maxine Waters, an influential Democrat who had this to say about civility toward the political opposition: "If you see anybody from that (Trump) Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."
As the violent rhetoric ramps up, Trump officials (Sarah Huckabee, Elaine Chao, Jeff Sessions, among others) have been harassed in public places and at their homes, threatened with violence and even thrown out of restaurants because they work for this White House. It shows what the left really thinks of democracy.
Is this a preview of what America will be like under a Democratic administration?
Is this the future of the Democratic Party? Sure looks that way.”
Two people can play this game of loaded questions. The Democrats will admit theat they are socialists 5 minutes after the GOP publically admits that they are fascists. It isn't like you and 90% of conservatives understand what democratic socialism means.
So tell us what Democratic Socialism is, epistte. Does Capitalism play any part in it?
Why would we say something so untrue about ourselves when fascists are socialists?
Fascists cannot be socialists. Fascism is capitalist economic policies mixed with authoritarian governments.
Any stable economic idea will always be a mix of capitalism and socialism of various types.
You can think of my market idea of socialism the employee themselves being capitalists but the business that they work at being market socialist. The employees are the owners of the business, either in full or in part. Look at Canada and the Nordic countires (Sweden Norway, Finland and Iceland, plus Denmark, Germany, France and Belgium) of western Europe as the goal. Progressives don't want to make the US like Russia, Venezuela or China. There will always be the public services like schools, infrastructure, the social safety net and such, but the free market is not going away. We just want the employees to own more of it instead of just being a cog in it.
Wow, you apparently like throwing names around when you have absolutely no clue what they mean..
Fascism and Socialism are diametrically opposed to each other, complete and total opposites. It's like claiming someone is an empathetic sociopath.
Of course they can. The fascist government controls the nation's industries. With socialism, we might say that there is social ownership of industry, while with fascism, we would put that control in the hands of an authoritarian dictator. But in practice, there is no difference. True socialism doesn't work without an authoritarian, dictatorial government. So, whether power is concentrated in an individual or some collective government body, the fact remains that industry is controlled by the government.
I have never seen American Republicans advocate such a system. They have always championed the freedom of the individual, and a capitalistic system as free as possible of government intervention and control.
I also haven't seen Democrats advocate for such a system either, by and large, but as enamored as they are of the government's power to regulate private industry or have government run an industry itself (think: healthcare, utilities) they appear to be moving in that direction.
Yikes!
Who in their right mind would want ' true socialism '?
Yup, if power is held by the State then it is not held by the people.
True
True
Indeed the D party is solidly in support of social democracy.
False. The D party is solidly in support of capitalism, market economy and democracy (in the form of a constitutional, federated Republic). It has no (current) intent to follow the horrid examples of the former USSR, et. al.
The system you describe as ' true socialism ' seems to have the former USSR as its exemplar. Cuba, China, Venezuela, etc. have adopted variations of this system.
What I had in mind was that the employyes get the stock via their pension investments or as group co-signers on a busines loan to buy the company from the current owners. The employees individually buying the stock privately on the market is not an ESOP.
calling people who support the 2nd amendment fascists is kind of ignorant. (uneducated)
fascists do not allow the entire population the ability to shoot back
Deleted
Where exactly did I do that? Please feel free to describe my opinions of the 2nd Amendment.
I never made a blanket statement that all Republicans are fascists, despite your apparent opinion. You are creating a strawman.
Heartland made the illogical claim that socialists are fascist, which cannot possibly be true because fascism requires capitalism.
too funny... do try to keep up.
he did however become disenchanted with the socialists after joining the military yet that socialist bent remained.
the gop does not want govt control of business... the leftwingnut socialists do.
we are done here... you have nothing
Fascism is national socialism.
Is that supposed to be an argument in favor? Because I wouldn't want to live in any of those places.
You equate ' true socialism' with the system of the former USSR (and variations thereof) and I am saying that your definition of ' true socialism' is a horrid system.
I didn’t say socialists were fascists. I said fascists were socialists. Which is fact as national socialism is a form of socialism. There is nothing capitalist or conservative about the state owning or controlling much of the industry of a country.
If the State owns and controls the productive resources of a nation then you have State capitalism. When a minority of individuals (regardless of how this is accomplished) own and control the productive resources of a nation you have, by definition, capitalism. Only when the public predominantly owns and controls the productive resources of a nation do you technically have socialism.
One must understand the fundamentals for this to make sense. Fundamental number one is this:
Most people are operating on labels alone without understanding the dynamics involved. The goal of socialism is distributed, public economic control rather than minority economic control.
It is cool if you do not like the goal, but you should understand the subject matter.
Bravo!
The Democratic party has had a socialist faction for some time. There are quite a few factions in the party yet they all fall under the same umbrella.
The same applies to the GOP. Many factions. Actually a better fit for independents than the Dems are.
I doubt it. They are independent for a reason.
America has embraced a mix of socialism and capitalism.
Socialism: noun - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Capitalism: noun - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
When you mix the two you get: an economic and political system in which a country's non-essential trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, while essentials like utilities, police, fire, water, sewer and care for the elderly, sick and extreme poor is regulated by the community as a whole.
Maybe the new mix should be renamed "Sensibalism" because you can no longer define it as one or the other. Democrats support and defend Sensibalism while most Republicans want strict capitalism. I would define myself as a Sensibalist, not a socialist.
Just admit it.
It’s hard for them to accept that their party over the years has moved much more to the hard left than the GOP has gone to the right over the last 50 years or so.
That is laughable when you understand that Bernie Sanders is to the right of Dwight D. Eisenhower (R.)
Because you live in California where recreational marijuana use is legal, I suggest that you put down the Fox News bong and return to reality.
That is totally based on the 90% tax rate Eisenhower had and no one ever made the kind of money who didn't have enough deductions they could use to never pay that percentage or anywhere near it. Nothing else could even be considered to claim Bernie Sanders is to the right of Eisenhower.
And he inherited that rate from FDR.
Bernie Sanders is still not a radical lefty. He is much more in line with Eisenhower, Angela Merkel or Justin Trudeau than some evil lefty boogeyman that Fox News has manufactured.
It is obvious that I am not making any headway with the current argument so lets turn it 180°. What do you envision would be Bernie Sanders policies if he got elected? What do you fear would happen if Bernie was elected? He has said many times that he supports the economic policies of Canada and the Nordic countries of Europe or even western Europe, so what is it about this two areas that you disagree with? Please keep your reply to the economic ideas and not gun control, immigration or other policies that are not reconomics econoimics.
As for the idea of democratic socialism the most pure idea is that the employees themselves are capitalists but the businesses, or at least some of them because we will always have a mixed market economy for stability, would be owned and managed by the employees. To make it easier to understand, the business would be owned as a partnership of 200+ workers instead of by one person/family or even the shareholders.
I had a much longer reply typed out but for some reason my computer deleted it and won't give it back.
FDR's top tax rate, in an effort to fund the war, was 94%.
A rate virtually no one actually paid.
You're positively brilliant.
Just stating a fact.
Of course people have very different meanings for the word 'socialism' so it is difficult to accept or reject the allegation that the D party is 'socialist'. But let's hold off on that and look at how the representative-elect defines 'socialism' :
At this point, the blue text matches well with the objectives of socialism proper - i.e. have the means of production and distribution under the control of the people (distributed, majority control) as a whole rather than under the control of a minority. Stopping here one could surmise that Ocasio-Cortez is indeed a bona fide socialist. But then she goes on and moves into the fuzzy social democracy world of her mentor - Bernie Sanders:
Socialism, per se, is not about giving things to people. It is more about a system wherein everyone has more control over their economic destiny . What one does with that control is up to them and the results will definitely not be identical - some will prosper and others will fade into mediocrity. While a future system of socialism would necessarily include a baseline standard of living, this is not the objective. For socialism to work the socio-economic/political infrastructure must already be at a point where basic needs are met systemically. The objective of socialism is not meeting of these needs but rather distributed economic power. (That is something that is very likely distant in the future - if ever.)
So my take, based on this little bit of info, is that Ocasio-Cortez, like her mentor Bernie Sanders, claims to be a Democratic Socialist (and Democratic Socialism is indeed socialism) but in practice will advocate social democracy (the European practice of using a highly controlled capitalist economy to fund public programs). This is exactly what Sanders did.
Now let's look at this commentary:
This would lead one to believe that the D party is in favor of redistribution of wealth, more government run public programs and a focus on the economically challenged. This draws from contemporary liberalism, statism and social democracy. I think it is quite fair to say that the D party is in favor (at least in terms of words) of 'government funded' public programs with a main focus on the economically challenged. That is not socialism but it certainly could be labeled social democracy (which some people label as 'socialism' anyway).
I am pondering a thread about socialism but I also know that unless the conversation is very tightly confined to the required econcomic ideas of worker/group ownership that the thread will also immediately become an unmoderated -bleep-storm of tired insults and innuendo. The economic concepts of socialism needs to be seperated from the civil libertarian, democratic-republic or authoritarian powers of the government that accompanies it.
It is obvious that more than 70% of the forum are somehow convinced that socialism, even democratic socialism, means that we would have a dictator as the head of government and no freedom of goods in a relatively free market as we currently do. The knowledge of civics and economics in the US is cringe-worthy and that ignorance makes discussions such as these almost impossible to have on any level that is not merely partisan insults.
I welcome your thoughts on the subject.
Absolutely agree.
So few people understand this subject matter the best one can do is attempt to provide information (education). But even when one is seriously trying to simply do that, one will have to deal with naïve, emotional, hype-based, bumper-sticker-thinking (a Bob Nelson phrase) remarks.
I encourage you to write the article ... just keep your expectations low.
I would be a part. I have been told I don't know what it means. There seems to be a lot of misconceptions. My own as well.
Agreed. It would make no sense to repeat the same errors.
What was Sanders trying to sell? What, precisely, is your understanding of what Sanders sought?
TiG, Exhibit A.
Capitalism, especially the under-regulated form has been crashing, failing and then being resuscitated for the past 300+ years. Democratic market-socialism has not failed, despite what you want to believe or have been told.
It was absolutely predictable. In fact, I predicted it (and have a witness).
I think these two are proving the article's accusation to be true. If you're lazy it's great until everyone gets lazy.
As usual, I see no substance ... only snark. Your 'faux intellectualism' label is ironic given what you have offered thus far.
Let me guess, you think socialism is a system wherein everyone shares equally (and thus slackers are not motivated to work). Is that what you have in mind?
I still think it would be a good idea. I personally call what we have socialistic. Like Medicare, social security, roads, police.
I have been told that is wrong.
I would trust what TiG has to say.
He have big brain.
If you label public services as 'social democracy' you will be on somewhat solid ground. Other infrastructure items such as roads, police, military, ... are fundamental to any functioning society. They do not distinguish socialism (or if they do then all socio-economic/political systems of the major nations are socialism).
Good luck.
You still don't understand that democratic socialsm is not a redistribution of weath equally to everyone. Very very few people want that. We will always have a social safety net, but democratic socialism will benefit those who work the most because the workers will earn more than they do now as just being an employee with no stake in the companie's ownership.
Maybe we could enact a law saying that the maximum the owner could earn if 20x the lowest salary in his company. He can earn as much as he wants, as long as the workers on the low end of the pay scale also receive commensurate wage increases.
Probably a good time for you to cease playing the snark, personal derogatory game and provide relevant, thoughtful content.
Those ideas are necessary for any modern society to function. We would surely collapse without them.
Do you support adding universal healthcare and paid education past k-12 to that list, like most modern countries do?
You words are intellectual static. Please either add something of value to the conversation or leave.
I tried to vote that up twice but the damn system will not allow it.
Landshark,
Make a worthwhile comment or leave this discussion. You are here just to be a distraction.
True. There has to be infrastructure.
From what I gather, it is supposed to be a system where everything is basically publicly owned.
I don't know if what I believe would fall into that category as I believe that public works should be government run, such as power, gas etc.
I also believe in free enterprise and think the two can work harmoniously.
I think we should have Medicare for all.
And yes, I would support four years of college being part of the curriculum.
I would say that the price of college would go down quick.
The only thing that is publicly owned (controlled, actually) is the means to economic prosperity. Private property (homes, cars, clothing, etc.) of course would exist.
That will be true (in various degrees) regardless of the economic system. All nations need infrastructure and public administration of same.
Free enterprise is critical IMO for a functioning economy. Without competition (and the rewards of success and the drawbacks of mediocrity) human ambition would (in general) atrophy.
What are going to do about the lazy ones in your Socialist Utopia?
There are certain things that a well-functioning civil society should simply have in place. At a minimum (off the top of my head) everyone should not have to worry about:
None of this suggests a particular economic system.
I think the 'socialist utopia' you have in mind is strictly in your mind. It is not what I have ever described (nor is it a correct description of socialism). If you were to pay attention to what I write (we shall see) you will notice that competition is fundamental. Unequal rewards is fundamental. Thus ambition pays off and laziness does not.
Gotcha. I think. Haaha
It would make a good article though.
What is your point? The 'socialism' of the video is redistribution of wealth - a truly horrible idea. Worse, it describes a purely egalitarian system (no rewards for ambition) - a critically worse idea.
It seems to me that might be projecting just a little bit.
What makes you think that people won't work, especially when they have a chance to own a share of the company instead of just being seen as a fixed cost to be reduced or outsourced? You do understand when the employees own all of or a majority of the company they work harder and their jobs aren't outsourced. That fact benefits all of us.
The fact that the profits are more equally shared among the employees instead of just going to the outside shareholders or 1-2 people is better for the economy because there is more money to be spent instead of being hoarded by a few.
The post-K-12 education also needs to include tech' schools and community colleges because not everybody wants or needs a 4 year degree.
If we have universal healthcare then the Drs and nurses etc. will get their education and then repay that investment working in the system. They would get an education without being saddled with 20- years of debt and we the taxpayers would get the needed medical staff that universal healthcare would demand.
That investment in subsidized education will pay off with better-trained employees whose jobs cannot be replaced by machines. It also means that the population is smarter and can retrain if there is a shift in jobs because of technology or consumer demand.
I can't wait to see how this ends.
Try to offer something other than vague complaints - like thoughtful comments on the subject matter. That way you would at least offer the appearance of an attempt at intellectual discourse. Much better than making (truly pointless) demands of the mods.
.
leaving out it requires a govt ready to back the theft of our business'
individuals own the means of production in this country and every attempt by these market socialists to steal the means of production from those individual owners? will FAIL.
theft is met with force (not just a bumper sticker)
as an anarchist you already know how trying to move our country into socialism ends.... very badly.
(which all good anarchists want.)
the good news? with the election of trump, the left no longer has the tools or power to bring such chaos to our country
and those anarchist, progressive, socialists will never see the tools or power required again in their lifetimes
obama/clinton was your only and last hope
thank god for that
Where do you get these illogical ideas? You have not read anything that I have written in any coherent fashion. You are interpreting my ideas through your own very biased filter, which leaves you with the wrong concept and then you claim that your illogical conclusion is what I support. You could not be more wrong in your bizarre conclusions. It is obvious that your knowledge of economic concepts is lacking so you are terrified of anything that is even remotely different from what you currently experience. Change terrifies you because of your own ignorance.
Where do you get the idea that the workers steal the means of production?
did you not state the following?
if those are your words... let us look at the definition of market socialsim...
is that the market socialism you speak of? if not provide a link to this curious new breed of socialism that lets the people own and control their own business.
if it is the market socialism you speak of......
explain exactly how market socialism utilizes a means of production in this country which is currently owned by an individual??
( without taking the business or controlling the investments or profits. )
I am all ears...
Me too! I can’t wait to see this!
there are only three basic components to business
for the market mechanism to utilize the allocation of capital goods and the means of production, they have to tap into / tax / control / at least one of those components.
so in answer to this question.
it simply can not be done.
perhaps I am wrong? maybe missed a key component to the plan?? always that chance ey
I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt here.
let's see if we get anything more than unsourced psychobabble or personal attacks.
hoping for the best
Your question is difficult to parse. My guess is that you are trying to ask this question:
How can a market economy operate if the productive resources are publicly owned and the businesses are owned by the workers?
If so, then the answer is not complicated. Each business (owned by the workers; not owned by the state or by the government) leases productive resources (owned and regulated democratically by the public) and uses same to produce its products and/or services which it then sells (for profit). The multiple businesses competing for customers provides a market dynamic wherein prices are a function of basic supply and demand. The government is not setting prices, the market is. Each business will (seek to) make profits and then decide what to do with its profits. Part of the profits pay for the leased productive resources, part may be reinvested, part may be distributed to the worker-owners.
In short, there is nothing magical about a market economy nor is it a function of capitalism. The key is to have businesses that operate as independent entities (no different from what we see today) engaging in competition for consumer interest.
Now I have two questions for you:
employee-owned business'. leasing public land for business? nothing new. we already do both all the time. people are free to do whatever they like with as many owners as they like. that is capitalism.
you can call that socialism if ya like... I would question "your definition of socialism, but in the end that matters not to me.
in answer to your questions
have fun and enjoy
Correct. And there are various ways in which this can be accomplished. But absolutely correct, nothing new. Indeed, an employee-owned business can exist in socialism or capitalism. My answer was substantially more than 'worker-owned-business'.
Your definition of capitalism is unique. I have never read that as the distinguishing characteristic of capitalism. If you were to read about various systems (proposed) for market socialism virtually all of them involve individuals partnering up to start a business.
Your definition of socialism is nothing other than authoritarian rule ... fascism being a prime example. That is what I figured. Basically you affix the label 'socialism' to any system in which the State has seized control over business. No point trying to discussion socialism if that term simply means (to you) the USSR system (and variants).
seems more of a "business model" for capitalism than an "economic system" of socialism
great read, sound advice.
cheers
The key is to not presume that market based economies with worker-owned businesses are a function of capitalism. That is simply not the distinguishing factor.
that is socialism as a "national economic system"
you are talking about an individual group of peoples "business model" and calling that socialism.
you can say gay frogs are cats for all I care... LOL
like I said somewhere around here... there is no faster-moving target than the definition of socialism.
cheers
the key is not to listen to pseudo-intellectual psychobabble
simple enough question... please unconfuse me
That is not what I wrote. Here is what I wrote:
So, where does the shareholder or investor fit in in your economic model?
even shorter... a business model and nothing more.
and here I thought today's left wanted a new "national economic system" called socialism because they hated capitalism
silly me
now it seems they like capitalism so much they have invented a business model to exploit the capitalist system....
job well done
Probably in a publicly traded corporation.
That idea would be known as a mixed economy.
You have proven that you have nothing to offer to this discussion except drive-by sniping.
so you agree we do not need a new economic system?
as capitalism already does these things why do we need to change the word to socialism?
The political left in the USA is not looking to change the economic system from capitalism to socialism. There certainly is a minority who would prefer such a change but the vast majority of the USA left appears to be firmly involved with capitalism and I do not see that changing in any of our lifetimes.
That is a very strange notion you have. Worker owned business is not in-itself socialism. It is a key part of proposed systems for socialism but worker ownership is not what distinguishes socialism from capitalism. So I do not know what to tell you other than break free of this bad notion.
Do you have any references from people who are advocating that it would be wonderful if a nation State seized private property? No doubt there are nutcases out there who think the Chavez's of the world are right, but to use Venezuela, et. al. as an example of socialism is to broadcast a total lack of understanding of the principles. Hint: if the government is in control (forcing) then the people are not in economic control. If the people are not in economic control then you do not have socialism.
Well, let's see. The most basic notion:
It does not matter if it is the private sector or an authoritarian State that is the controlling minority. Minority control over the productive resources for an economy is the major distinction.
I have proven that everything you describe is available now in our current system of capitalism.
what exactly is going to change with this new market socialism plan?
Deleted
We already have a mixed economic system for stability, much like we have a 3-pronged system of government for stability. You and others are so convinced that what TiG and I are suggesting will be some massive shakeup for the US when it reality things will look very much like they are today because this idea is merely fine-tuning the current system for the benefit of the workers and the citizens instead of money only going to the richest 5%.
First of all, it is not MY economic model. I am simply providing you with information. I am not advocating anything nor am I inventing anything.
That established (maybe) under virtually every proposed system for socialism there are no shareholders outside of the workers, there are no investors (outside of the workers). All businesses are 100% owned by the workers (let's ignore the exceptions).
how is our system being fine tuned by a business model that already exists and is available to any who wish to do it?
please explain... seriously... I am very curious.
oops... errant click
my confusion derives from this...
I agree employee-owned business is a very good idea. I just do not get what will be changed... we already have it.
do new ideas not come with new actions? new rules? new regs?
or is everyone just going to agree to do it with a handshake, like, or thumbs up?
again... how will this "fine tuning" be implemented?
are we talking about govt promoting the new idea or funding the new idea?
if you can answer that without the word or implication of force I can get on board for real :)
but truth is... I still do not know what is stopping it from being done now...
seriously what must change for this new market socialism AKA employee-owned business to happen?
You have some very odd ideas. First of all, 'the left' is not an organization with an agenda. There are all sorts of competing ideas on 'the left'. That is sort of the nature of 'the left'.
Further, I am really surprised that you think 'the left' in the USA are predominantly advocating anti capitalism. Where do you get your information? If anything, 'the left' advocates social democracy. That certainly is where Bernie Sanders was coming from.
which is why I am only going to continue this conversation with one leftist at a time...
holding one conversation with two peoples version of things... is challenging yes. but goes nowhere in the end.
epistte can speak for themselves from now on.
catch ya later
I have yet to see a rational argument that social democracy is anti-capitalist when the workers themselves are very much capitalist, both in person and as a cohesive group of owners.
Just because employees can individually buy stock on the open market doesn't make them employee-owned businesses.
Tax benefits and preferential business loans to benefit and encourage employee-owned business at the expense of shareholder corporations.
but now I know the real target... "corporations"
that is progress
unless told otherwise I will assume "encourage" means "promote the idea" and not "fund" the idea" the chamber of commerce can handle that
questions...
You presume too much.
Further, it cannot really be anti-capitalism given it (by definition) relies upon a highly regulated capitalist engine to fund the public offerings. That is, for those who have taken the time to actually learn what these concepts mean rather than simply toss around labels with superficial, 'bumper-sticker' meaning.
if I may be so bold... I think you might be saying:
tax corporations profits and use that money to fund the creation of employee-owned business?
is that correct?
Profits are already taxed, including those of employee-owned businesses, but there is a state interest for the state in the creation of higher paid jobs that are stable, so the EOC would pay a lower rate than shareholder corporations. Wouldn't you rather work at a corporation where you have a stake in the business instead of just being seen as a fixed cost to be reduced either by layoffs or outsourcing? The employees are more likely to split the after-tax profits more equally among themselves via seniority instead of the profits going to one person/family or a group of outside shareholders who have no long-term interest in the survival of the business or the employees.
I see shareholders and investors as the engine of a capitalist economy. As one I can say that my economic future regarding savings for life goals, a rainy day fund, saving for kids education, health savings, and retirement savings is totally dependent on the well being of corporate America.
OK now I know what is going on with market socialism. thanks.
why did you just not say that to begin with...LOL
unless I misunderstand and you mean the corporations and its stock-holders would simply agree to this?
the answer at the supreme court will be no.
I have no love for the corporations and I do like the idea of employee-owned business. it is a good idea and a solid business model.
but forcing corporations to fund that project? never going to happen.
no... other than lifeguard and military I was self-employed my whole life. (yes I built that myself)
wouldn't you rather build your employee-owned business with your friends without the force of government taking that money from corporations and their stockholders to give to you? the fact is - no socialist would ever want that
if a socialist just wanted to build an employee-owned business? they would just do it right now. no need for your new idea
How To Build An Employee-Owned Business
get a business loan like everyone else and stop trying to get others to fund your dreams.
fund it and build it yourself.
if your only bent is to take/tax from others first in order to start that business? the answer will always be no in this country.
however, I do believe it would work in other countries that do not have our pesky constitution.
Cheers
Taxation is fundamental to most all nations. Redistribution of wealth via taxation is also replete - especially with social democracies. Taxation to fund public offerings does not distinguish a socialist from a capitalist economy.
save the intellectual psychobabble k? it is pathetic. seriously.
every imaginable tax is not OK just because other taxes are OK
we can not force insurance companies to fund the continued losses generated by the obamacares requirements.
any faster than we can force corporations to fund market socialism.
with all certainty... NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN
I would be totally wrong here.... if only hillary had won.... LOL
her supreme court would have agreed with you
the "originalists" on the court now and coming soon? will not go along with your plan.
What part, specifically, do you think is 'psychobabble'?
Where do you see me suggesting that all taxation is okay? My comment was that taxation and redistribution of wealth takes place in virtually every nation. Thus those factors do not distinguish socialism from capitalism.
Force? I have not written anything of the sort. Are you in full strawman mode now?
Agreed with me on what precisely? What is this 'plan' you attribute to me?
for a few posts I think I thought you were epistte - my bad yo... let it go.
I think a better question is:
why do "smart" people have such a problem with capitalism, while the stupid fuks like me thrive, retire early, are happy and content every day without getting the govt to force others to pay our way?? seriously, how do we do it? it is a puzzlement... LOL
Game Over - going out for the night to shoot some pool.
Cheers
You will note that I have always mentioned a mixed market economy. That mixture would surely include capitalistic corps. If we had universal healthcare you wouldn't need a health savings account.
Where exactly have TiG and I ever said that we support the government paying anyone's way? You apparently read words but you have already made up your mind, so you don't comprehend what we are saying. Market socialism isn't paying anyone's way any more than the current system does.
You presume that I am promoting an alternative to capitalism simply because I am explaining the concepts behind market socialism??
If we were to discuss Islam and I took the initiative to explain what history tells us of the prophet Muhammad would you presume I was a Muslim (or even pro-Islam)?
I periodically engage in discussions like this only to try to encourage people to do a little research. This is a complex subject matter and should not be dismissed as variants of the former USSR, redistribution of wealth, purely egalitarian society managed by an authoritarian state, etc. Plus it would be really cool if people would distinguish the presence of public services from socialism. Just because one can label something as a 'social' services does not mean socialism is at play. (In fact the presence of public services does not mean anything, really, at all in terms of identifying the economic system.)
Thank God for Trump and the Supreme Court!
Yep! You called that right.
I don’t want universal care. I don’t have an official HSA. I just save for the deductible and other out of pocket costs. When I retire I won’t either as I fully intend to go with a Medicare advantage plan with my federal tax dollars buying private insurance. Never intend to have traditional Medicare in my life.
I've seen people like him multiple times. He can read the words that I have written, but in his mind, he twists my words around to confirm his currently held beliefs.
Magic 8 ball has been wrong this entire thread. Only Donald Trump has been wrong more often.
Magic 8 Ball has been right about all their contributions to this thread. Trump is right and is doing a great job as the president of all the people of America.
Will this be the last time that you try to bump this thread with partisan pabalum, or do you forsee other attempts later this evening?
Did you want the last word that badly that you would accuse a direct response to a members post of being a bump? Simply ridiculous.
Let's not forget the huge amount of taxpayer dollars going into the funding of America's 100% socialized military. Now THERE'S a truly wasteful social program.
E.A WOW!!
Educate us, how would YOU safeguard a Nation?
Under world Socialism no one would need a military to protect its citizens. Everyone would work hard and share the wealth, didn't you know that, EA? <sarc>
E.A Yes and all be HIGH on Drugs and lets not forget the STDs so that Big Pharma have the $$$
And then need the " Foetal Tissues " for all the " Medical " Procedures to keep them alive after 20. see " Dune " and how the " Emperor " did it there :-)
No competition?? Everyone gets an equal share?? What kind of a nutty system are you imagining?
Well, EA, I would find a way to do it without spending more on the military than the next ten biggest ones COMBINED.
I think they are talking about a global version of venezuela.
and being sarcastic
I think they are talking about a cartoonish 'socialism' and I think they actually believe they have command of this subject matter.
no worries.
stupid eventually hurts - the pain is on the way
the show is just now getting started
enjoy
E.A WOW!!! Great tell us HOW?
By spending only what is necessary. Did you know that the government sometimes spends taxpayer dollars on equipment the military does not even want? The military is by FAR the most wasteful social program we have. Lots of fat can be cut.
E.A Its time to SHOW not to Tell so Show us!
" Many words are a Poor mans excuse for inaction!"
E.A See all of the X 15 - X 45 and the Blackbird, do YOU think it would have been WISE for the Govern Ment to have told the Public about them?
Irrelevant. Are you denying there is waste that can be cut from military spending?
E.A Last Time are YOU going to tell/Show US how YOU going to do what YOU proposed or are YOU just Hotair?
E.A Take a Lesson from those Crows and Eat....
Crow vending machine skills 'redefine intelligence'
A small South Pacific island is home to a crow with remarkable abilities that have scientists hooked.
How on Earth do you design a vending machine for crows?
It is actually a cleverly-designed intelligence test. Dr Sarah Jelbert, from University of Cambridge, who developed it, explained that to delve into the birds' cognitive abilities she had to see them learning something new. So the idea was to create a task unlike anything crows would find in nature.
"They'd obviously never find paper or card in the wild," said Dr Jelbert, "so we developed this vending machine that that they could drop small pieces of paper into to release a treat - a little piece of meat."
First the birds have to be "convinced" to operate this box-shaped machine. "We place stones or bits of paper on top of the box with meat hidden underneath," Dr Jelbert explained. "The birds will often nudge the stone or paper into the hole, or slot - that triggers a reward from the vending machine."
Once the birds had learned how the machine worked, the team gave them a piece of paper too big to fit into the slot - to see if they would snip that into smaller pieces that would fit. "About half of them did that spontaneously," said Dr Jelbert.
You seem to love biology, EA, do you read up on genetics much? Modern genetic knowledge is fascinating...
Why does this matter?
Researchers continue to be amazed by these birds' abilities, but they are not only entertainingly inventive in their tool-making and problem-solving, they are also showing us how intelligence can evolve in a very different way to how it evolved in humans.
"With the crows, we see behaviours very similar to human behaviours - even though they only have a beak and feet they can manipulate things and make quite intricate tools," said Dr Jelbert.
"Delving into these questions shows us that our way is not the only way. And I find that quite humbling."
E.A Yes so Far they have FAILED to show where Homo Sapiens came from!
Just Arse Umpions and nothing more see what they where stating just a few years ago about Gromagnon and what they say now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_early_modern_humans
The military is not a social program. It exists to defend our freedom and to protect our interests and citizens around the and our very existence as a free and independent country.
do you think social services and public works projects are also examples of socialism?
is this what our educational system produces now? seriously?
Yes they are socialist. They are collectively owned by the people and exist to provide a service that is more important than generating a profit. My electricity comes from a city-owned power plant. I pay less than capitalist First Energy and the service is much better. The city is part of AMP-Ohio that is a statewide network of other municipal power plants. We switched over from coal to shale natural gas about 2 years ago.
You think they're not? Seriously?? Socialism is more than just feeding those horrid poor people you hate so much. Cheers!
I have no problem with social services, public works or feeding people.
let me give you a hint. social services is not socialism because of the word social being there
but for fun I will play along so lets go back to your original bs.
why would you say the military is an example of socialism? (answer this question in full or conversation over)
equal results? equal pay? equal labor? none of that exists in the military. as an E5 I made more than half of the enlisted ranks made and they worked way harder than I did. a chief makes even more than that. a master chief? even more money than that with even less labor
military. equal pay for equal labor? not a chance.
not to mention one can get out of the military at the end of an enlistment while it is kind of hard to get out of a "new form of government"
so yeah... enlighten me
btw military equal results?
nope.
everyone has an equal opportunity to get ahead in the military
but there is no guarantee of equal results to be found anywhere in the military
I was an E5 at discharge. a friend who joined when about when I did only made E3 in the same time frame.
why? the military is a merit-based outfit people who work harder get further ahead faster
( I reckon that is not exactly fair )
Is both undesirable (critically bad idea) and impossible to achieve.
so is socialism in the USA - simply not going to happen/ we are not going the way of venezuela
our constitution does not allow our govt to steal our property and business and give it to other people.
anyone who says my business and property are now shared by the people? will catch a bad case of lead poisoning and so will those people.
theft will be met with force.
any admin that tries to enforce fill blown socialism will be burnt to the ground and we will build it again .
as for piece meal attempts at socialist bs like obamacare?
well.. you seen what happened there. dead law. (I never paid that fine and never will)
Certainly hope not. Venezuela seized control of companies and attempted to run a command economy. An all powerful state is a nightmare scenario.
You consider government 'funded' public programs to be 'socialism'? If so, virtually every nation on the planet is engaging in 'socialism'.
no... but people who think the military is an example of socialism will agree wholeheartedly
as for obamacare of which I spoke.
.
your healthcare is not my shared responsibility.
but I am willing to help those who can not pay.
is indigent care socialism? no.. just good manners.
OK my times up... the crew is here and time to go surfing
cheers
People have quite a varied definition for 'socialism'. In fact, using the term is almost meaningless in ordinary discussion. Better to focus on what an individual means by 'socialism' and ignore the label entirely.
Thus ...
Mostly true. Expropriation in the USA is rare.
Broad scale expropriation such as that seen in Venezuela is likely to always end badly. It is nothing more than an authoritarian State using its power in a bad way.
Hard to understand what this means: what is 'full blown socialism'?
So you think a government 'funded' public program is 'socialism'? Then you must think most every nation on the planet has a 'socialist' system.
Seems that by 'socialism' you mean a system wherein the State seizes control of substantial amounts of private property and/or redistributes wealth. Something like a fascist social democracy.
The IMPORTANT definition, is the definition everyone goes by based on the "socialist" politicians speech in this country.
Doesn't matter about any of the Varied definitions......or Anything "sugar and spice" .....or even the flowery rhetoric that is used to make socialism sound good !
It's all about what the one running for office in "This Country" says "THEY" want.
Everyone does not go by the same definition. Not even close.
Using a label that is horribly overloaded with massive variations in usage is pointless. Best to not use the term and just state what you mean. Then people will at least know what you are trying to say.
I don't overload it. I just go by what our "Socialist" politicians say. They are the ones that overload it with their support of it.
Well of course you (as an individual) do not overload the term. That would be strange for an individual to have one meaning for a term and then turn around and use an entirely different meaning for the same term.
The term is overloaded - it has nothing whatsoever to do with you as an individual.
Overloaded = many, varied usages - especially when the usages are contradictory
Reference Bernie and Cortez then. They are Strange. Everything will be sugar and cream if they should be elected.
non sequitur
Apt..... The one pushing it....dictates the definition.
I suppose that is one explanation for why there are so many conflicting definitions for certain terms.
The U.S. politicians that profess that idea, don't leave anything to the imagination, so....I don't find it to be conflicting at all. It IS....WHAT THEY SAY.
Did you read this?: TiG @ 4
There is a profound difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy.
Sure !
But Like I've said....We the voter....only have what the "Politician" that advocates socialism.....SAYS !
You and I can go back and forth all day and night, but when it comes down to it, the Voter is the one that will decide what they believe based on what the "Self Described "Socialist" Politician" tells them.
Exactly. And the voters will 'hear' different things even if the politician is clear and consistent. Bear in mind that even Bernie Sanders was sending out a mixed message by self-labeling as a Democratic Socialist while describing a policy of social democracy. So it would be quite an event if the politicians were clear and consistent to begin with.
Back to how pointless it is for someone to use the label 'socialism' as if the term alone can convey meaning.
Not at all. What Bernie Proposed and what Cotez Proposed was VERY understandable.
Problem = Who pays ?
"Back to how pointless it is for someone to use the label 'socialism' as if the term alone can convey meaning."
Then the Democrats should stop using it. Same as they should stop throwing the word "Progressive" around like it's candy.
Then you do not actually understand the difference between Democratic Socialism and social democracy.
Why limit this to the D's? The R's are constantly tossing the label around.
Are you talking about words that may be construed as a "Socialist" word, or what I said based on what Democrats actually say ?
It's not my job to understand it. It's the politician that claims it, to explain it.
You cannot be serious. That is akin to accepting what a politician says on trust alone. If the electorate does not take responsibility to understand the many (and sometimes complex) aspects of life it will continue to be controlled by clever politicians.
Ultimately, it most definitely is your responsibility to understand things - even if your designated politician does not know how to get the point across.
Call me Crazy !
Dead Serious.
I wouldn't even consider voting for a politician claiming "They are a "Socialist" !
Do you ? Ha...Ha....Ha ?
If you admit that you don't understand the concepts of democratic socialism or social democracy, then why exactly are you taking part in the thread and posting your admittedly uninformed opinions?
I admitted no such thing !
I DID ADMIT....I wouldn't vote for someone that said they were a socialist.
Did you miss that ?
Tacitly, yes you did.
Although, giving you the benefit of the doubt, it would be interesting if you did describe the fundamental difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy.
My conclusion is that you do not understand the difference but it would be cool if my conclusion is wrong.
deleted
Not a good trait to claim one can read between the lines. Makes for a lot of misunderstandings.
"My conclusion is that you do not understand the difference but it would be cool if my conclusion is wrong."
"Scientifically" Theorizing ?
What I posted was very simple to understand.
My conclusion stands. A shame.
The most fundamental difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy is that the former does indeed advocate public (read: collective) control of the productive resources for a socio-economic/political system while the latter relies predominantly on private ownership of same (aka capitalism).
There are many other fundamental differences, but this is the big one.
You most definately did say it,
Yes I did admit that I would not vote for someone that claims to be a socialist.
As for this:
It's not my job to understand it.
Says nothing about my knowledge of the ideology, just a note about the U.S. politician that "Claims" such !
So little study, but such a BIG conclusion.
It is a Shame !
The base rate is 35.00 a month and then $.06 a kWh after that.
My electric averages about $60 plus $20 for water and sewer, and $10.00 for trash. I have natural gas heat for heat and hot water. I also love my AC. The next week averages in the mid 90° so it will get plenty of use.
Well said.
I agree.
Your area sounds a lot like mine.
of course they are socialist, also communist / progressives all of which are authoritative at the core.
socialism, communism / progressivism will never trump americanism and capitalism.
Does your magic 8-ball also explain why my political views border on socialist anarchy? It is conservatives who rate higher on the authoritarian scale. I created a thread about the political compass quiz and all of the scores above the median toward dictatorship are conservatives. Shrekk and I are virtually off the chart on the bottom left. Heartland and Arkpdx are the closest to fascism.
I spend no time thinking about you or why you do what you do and never will.
if your anarchist tendencies hope for socialism? people like me are going to crush those dreams
your political compass quiz? a broken compass points anywhere the creators want it to point just like the creators of any poll.
Your reading comprehension is clearly lacking. I created the thread, but obviously, I didn't create the quiz.
I remember the quiz, the conservatives were scoring pretty much center to the right and low of the authoritarian line as I did, only two, the last I seen, were above the line and you mentioned them above, the liberals, on the other hand, were scoring way low and to the left.
The quiz, however, was a little misleading, the assumption was that the people already placed on the graph would have answered the questions the way that would land them where they were shown.
Pretty sure you cannot give me a coherent explanation of ANY of those ideologies. And just being able to cut and paste from Google doesn't actually mean you understand what you are talking about.
I made no cut and pastes from google and btw you were pretty sure trump would never win also....
move along.
This is a mistake many poorly informed people make. Socialism does not equate to communism. Most of the anti-socialists here are really against communism which is a very different system of governance.
Socialism: noun - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Communism: noun - a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Virtually no Democrats, liberals or progressives want communism. We support a blend of capitalism for all non-essential goods and services and socialism for the essentials like utilities, police, fire, military and moderate care for the elderly, disabled and extreme poor. This is a world away from communism, yet some fascists wish to label any form of socialism as "communist" which is blatantly false.
that economic theory does not work without the govt backing it = form of government
I will regulate my own business, my own production and any distribution of my wealth. try to remove my control of that?
theft is met with force... no exceptions
Are you intentionally being obtuse? As I state very clearly, the mix of socialism and capitalism we have isn't trying to take control your business or take control away from you. The non-essentials are ALL capitalist endeavors with supply and demand determining pricing and values. The socialism comes in only when it's an essential that supply and demand isn't good at regulating. If we allowed capitalism to control utilities, fire, police, the military and care for our elderly, disabled and extreme poor it would dump them all in a landfill and only the highest bidders would get access to clean water, power, sewer and protections provided by police, fire and the military. Personally, I don't want to live in that society, I might as well go live in some warlord run 3rd world country.
Taking care of our elderly with social security and Medicare is sensible. Making sure everyone has access to clean water, heat, power, protection provided by fire departments, police departments and our military just make sense. That's why I came up with a new term to describe the mix of socialism and capitalism we have in America, Sensibalism.
Most politicians who are self-proclaimed socialists don't want to truly change that mix, they merely want to add to the list of already active social programs two additional essentials, healthcare and education. If you listen to them, none are advocating for ALL goods and services to be regulated by the government, just healthcare and education. So let's debate that instead of falling into the old rhetoric of labeling anyone who suggests that as "communist" or pure "socialists" because it simply isn't true. Most are really just Sensibalists.
Capitalism needs the government to bail it out from its own excesses every 20-30 years.
Should I be impressed by your type-A posturing that seems to be a crutch for your inability to discuss the current subject in a rational manner?
not required... I took an oath to defend the constitution and I meant it.
but you might be glad to know there has been bad news for me... the surf was blown out by high winds. so off to mow my yard instead.
if you wish to answer the "mother of all questions"
see my final post on this subject/ or not - I really do not care.
cheers
I also took the same oath in March of 1988.
A democratic socialist government is not unconstitutional because capitalism is not mentioned or required in the Constitution. You like many other conservatives are afraid of change because you don't understand the ideas. The answer to that problem is education.
we understand the lefts ideas, we also understand history,
and every example in history has shown socialism a failed ideology
we will not be Venezuela-ing our country...
aka NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN write that down it will be on the test
besides we already have a dictator, it is called the constitution.
and that dictator? does not allow theft of business or property to give to other people because "socialism"
on his best day, even your socialist/fascist hero mussolini could not pull it off in this country
cheers
Your mention of Venezuela as a supposed socialist goal is a red herring because us progressives don't want Venezuela either.
bs
socialism shit-holing a country is never the goal...
it is always the result.
I know I know.. the left always says "they just did not do it right"
read a history book and you will find no examples of socialism growing a country as powerful as ours... period
capitalism has lifted up more people from poverty than socialism ever has.
give it up... your backing a failed ideology.
socialism in america? the answer is always going to be "no chance in hell"
knowing we are ready to die to keep things as they are... is the left ready to die in order to change things?
without that kind of commitment? the left in the usa is doomed to live under capitalism
enjoy capitalism or die for socialism
we are giving the left no other options
no debate and no compromises
Well said. There are something’s that simply won’t be compromised. Our capitalist economic model, our constitution, free speech, religious liberty, and our 2A rights are things that can only be taken away by force and the ending of our constitutional republic. I agree that we will defend the above peacefully and vigorously enough to the extent that only force can strip them away from us.
I liked that quiz and I usually don't like them. I landed on Gandhi's dot, along with Raven and DP.
I might bump that thread up because there are a few people who never posted a score.
I take it periodically and always barely miss a bulls eye. I am in the lower left quadrant within a fraction of a point of an exact bulls eye on each axis.
I'll test again around September - October.
Funny how that was interpreted at another website.
I've taken it 5+ times and I am always in the same vicinity. 2-3 up from the bottom and one or two from the left edge.
I like when my test results are consistent. That is one reason I let a certain amount of time ti pass before re-testing. Even with ones own mind it is easy to manipulate responses to maintain consistency.
In my mind, time between testing helps moderate that.
I’m always between +6 and +7 on the conservative side and near +/- 0 on the authoritarian/libertarian line. Fairly close to Milton Friedman.
When the GOP admits it is a fascist party. Now before you even try to tell me how I am wrong, just know that my response is "exactly". If that doesn't make sense to you or how that applies to this thread then try thinking about it a little harder. If it still doesn't make sense then you are hopeless.
socialism: defined... LOL
talk about a moving target depending on who your talking to
some say things like
welfare
social services
public works projects
fire stations
highway/road construction
indigent care
are all forms of socialism
if that is the case? every country in the world is socialist... and that is not the case.
I would assert socialism is a form of government - period.
some might try to dodge that by calling it an economic system.... but does that so-called "economic system" not require govt force to implement? of course it does. impossible to do without government. period. so no matter how one slices it socialism requires/is a "form of government which allows for that economic system. our form of government does not allow for such things.
our country and our constitution is designed around the notion of an individuals control of their own individual effort, their individual production, and individual ownership of business/property. hint: we call this liberty
trying to turn our country into some "collectivist" idea of ownership will only result in more bloodshed than any has seen in their lifetimes = count on that. this is not even debatable. theft is met with force. no exceptions. it is a constitutional right which is not going away.
question:
why would someone think they own/share my time just because I was born?
why would someone think they own/share the results of my individual labor and production?
why would someone think they own/share the benefits of my individual accumulated wealth?
only a very stupid thief or extremely lazy fuk would think like that.
a bigger question:
why would I think I own/share the results of someone else's time, production and efforts? I'm not a greedy or jealous pussy like that and im not a thief. I also do not want to get shot.
and an even bigger question:
why do people want to abandon the economic system that created the most powerful country on the planet in favor of a economic system that will eventually venezuela our country? I will never understand that. but will stand in their way until my last breath. (this also is not debatable.)
the mother of all questions:
why would any adult alive today want to do that to their grandkids and great grandkids??? you care about the kids? BS.
the result of Venezuela's foray into socialism is communism (predictable as one naturally follows the other)
wait - did anyone not know they are being forced to work in the fields?
socialism is a proven failed ideology why would anyone want to venezela our country?
because they are either stupid, lazy, jealous or traitors who only wish to destroy our country.
im done with this subject... it is old and boring. / bring it to the streets and we can talk more
Spot on.
Republicans love socialism - as long as it goes straight to the top. Care to comment?
stupid business decisions are also not limited to the ideology of socialism.therefore, not an example of socialism.
so why would I comment on that when your premise started with complete bs?
the answer? just for fun and this is not about socialism/ I clearly said I was done with that subject
this is about stupid
and on that subject id say scott walker needs his ass fired. (also not an example of socialism)
cheers
You have offered nothing but strawmen and red herrings in this entire thread. I can assume that you have made up your mind about socialism but you cannot discuss the subject in an intelligent manner because your opinion is based on emotions instead of facts.
Tax money going to business is as socialistic as it is going to people. Lets get real. There are degrees of socialism and capitalism and every other ism. None are pure, so its disingenuous to pretend its all or nothing. Public money going to private business not a capitalist ideal is it?
E.A well stated if I am not in error, a study found that Owner managers of Any business, actually get paid less, then if they where employed for that duty, that is considering the overall hours worked!
Just to stop any foolishness, that does not include any profits attributed to the company!
yepp... and obama, the progressive/socialist prick, would agree with you as well
and now ya know why trump killed the subsidies to obamacares insurance companies
"The bailout of insurance companies through these unlawful payments is yet another example of how the previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system," Sanders said in a statement.
if you were trying to prove my point? thanks.
seriously... you should know better by now... LOL
cheers
Gee, that sounds like their bean counters are a WHOLE lot more accurate than California's bean counters.
California's bullet train is hurtling toward a ...
www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-cost-overruns...
Jan 13, 2017 · California’s bullet train could cost taxpayers 50% more than estimated for the first 118 miles — as much as $3.6 billion more – according to a confidential federal report obtained by …
Now, they all suck. Don't think I am happy with any govt. that can't estimate costs better and be upfront about it. It is a widespread problem at the federal level as we have seen with cost overruns for Defense projects especially.
because history is a red herring? or because you just found out the father of fascism (mussolini) was a socialist WHO favored Government control of business was part of Mussolini's policy planning. By 1935, he claimed that three-quarters of Italian businesses were under state control. (as all good socialists do)
never mind that was rhetorical-
but this one...
spot on. long ago, and I will not be moved.
this country is not following Venezuela down the path of socialism - period
so, unless you plan to move to Venezuela?
enjoy America 2.0 but I do hope your retirement plan was not socialism...
if it was? sell your stock now while ya still have time.
that stock is worthless in this country
I suggest you make new plans
cheers
Good points. My retirement plan is based on capitalism, expanded energy development, fewer regulations, more tax cuts, and the right to work.
mine also... some college, worked blue collar as a builder with over 20yrs of +80 hour work weeks
once my first house was paid in full getting more was easy
now I owe no one a dime and I just collect the rents.
twas game over (retired) at 45yrs old
socialism would not have allowed that to happen
being a union member would not have allowed for that either
cheers
Well done!
thanks...
being a workaholic like that took a toll on my personal life (understatement of the EVER )
but I am making up for lost time now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OXYLCVUaCc
I am a big fan of old black and whites
seen it years ago but enjoyed watching it again
that is a great movie
That was a wonderful movie. Thanks for sharing it with us all.
E.A Most welcome!!
Thanks for sharing!
What do you mean, The Chair of the Democrat Party said Socialism is the future of their party and Keith Ellison is the Deputy Chair of the Democrat Party and we all know who he is.
Whoops, wrong photo.
I am not sure most on the left are far enough gone to throw all their eggs in the socialist basket but I could be wrong.
Socialism is a matter of degree; almost all countries have some social programs.
social programs are not examples of socialism just because the word social is in there.
socialism is an economic system --- which you will never see in the USA
our economic system is capitalism. (not going away)
Quite true. This suggests either almost all countries are 'part socialist' or social programs do not distinguish socialism from capitalism.
And your thoughts would be.......?
You will have to narrow your question just a tad.
Which side of your post do you align with?
The part that I highlighted in blue:
Adding social (public) programs in a socio-economic/political system does does not make it more 'socialism' nor does reducing social programs make it less 'socialism'. You can substitute 'capitalism' in that sentence and it is equally true.
Sorry but that makes no sense to me. If you add more social programs to a socio-economic political system you are inherently making a more socialist system just as surely as if you add more capitalistic programs you are making a more capitalistic system.
Abandoned seed. Seeder on suspension.
Still seemed pretty lively to me.
Locked. seeder is on suspension and cannot defend his seed or participate, etc.