Uncle Bernie Saws Off His Own Limb with Outlandish Socialism Defense

  
Via:  heartland-american  •  4 weeks ago  •  82 comments

Uncle Bernie Saws Off His Own Limb with Outlandish Socialism Defense
For some inexplicable reason — perhaps tempting polls showing that 70% or more of Democrats find socialism attractive, or young gun Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s rock-star status — Crazy Uncle Bernie didn’t just climb out on a similar political limb with his own daffy idea to cling ever more tightly to the banner of “democratic socialism.” Like Fritz, he proceeded to saw the branch off himself. Roared the Vermonter: “It is my very strong belief that the United States must … find the moral...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders’ attempt to promote “democratic socialism” as a political platform recalls former Vice President Walter Mondale’s 1984 convention speech promise: “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes. And so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.”

A gift which my bosses at President Reagan’s re-election campaign accepted with undisguised glee. Especially when Fritz helpfully quantified his planned pocketbook raid, which our guys extrapolated to a $3,000 per-household hike.

Game. Set. Match. 

For some inexplicable reason — perhaps tempting polls showing that 70% or moreof Democrats find socialism attractive, or young gun Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s rock-star status — Crazy Uncle Bernie didn’t just climb out on a similar political limb with his own daffy idea to cling ever more tightly to the banner of “democratic socialism.” Like Fritz, he proceeded to saw the branch off himself.

Roared the Vermonter: “It is my very strong belief that the United States must … find the moral conviction to choose a different path, a higher path, a path of compassion, justice and love. It is the path that I call democratic socialism.”

Uh, huh. Certainly, going all-in on socialism is the new ticket!

So why isn’t the far-savvier Elizabeth Warren shimmying down the “socialism” branch in her own new platform, though her ideas are quite similar? Maybe because she’s instead cleverly purloining a page from nationalists by rebranding her equally far-left ideas as “economic patriotism.” 

Meanwhile, Crafty Nancy Pelosi, who’s been around the block enough times to separate a trend from a fad, is busy chopping down the entire tree.

“I do reject socialism as an economic system,” Madame Speaker has lectured the left wing of her caucus. “If people have that view, that’s their view. That is not the view of the Democratic Party.”

But she needn’t bother. In the selfsame speech, Uncle Bernie heightened his folly with a not just lame, but downright laughable effort to repackage socialism for mainstreamers.

“(L)et me be absolutely clear,” he intoned. “Democratic socialism to me requires achieving political and economic freedom in every community.”

Oh! Now I get it. Socialism is about “freedom!”

You see, according to the deep thinker who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union, “true freedom” is about the government guaranteeing “economic rights.”

Sanders even lifts the nomenclature of Constitutional amendments that (at one time) actually did guarantee freedom — declaring “a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights.” Only his includes the “right” to a job, health care, education, “affordable housing,” “a clean environment” and “a secure retirement.”

Even as he seeks to hang the label of “authoritarian” — a term he used no fewer than 10 times — on President Trump and business interests.

Nice try, Unc. But you got it backwards: such “economic freedom” is the utter antithesis of “true freedom.”

It’s servitude and slavery in the form of abject and outright surrender of self to faraway masters. Who’ll dictate what manner of (and how much) health care, education, housing and retirement you’ll get. Who’ll seize control of any and all means of production or transportation, not to mention living arrangements, in the name of “a clean environment.” And in the process, will appropriate your most precious freedoms, over family and faith. (Note Bernie’s invocation of LGBT “rights” as well.)

Because these bureaucrats don’t share your values or views — and certainly not your aspirations. Their only value is more power, control, and money — until, as Margaret Thatcher put it, they run out of other people’s (meaning your) money. Then they’ll print more, or simply oversee the shared, rationed scarcity they’ve created, versus the “shared prosperity” Uncle Bernie hopes for, alongside social chaos.

Venezuela, where the erstwhile middle class eats out of garbage trucks and children and the elderly die in hospitals without power, equipment or supplies, is everyone’s favorite current example.

But you needn’t even to go there. Let’s tour “Democratic socialist” havens like the , where a quarter of a million patients are waiting six months plus for promised treatment from their supposedly beloved single-payer National Health Service — which also routinely denies cataract and hernia surgery, hip and knee replacements and glucose monitors as of “limited clinical value.

Austria, where I once lived and where the trade off for “free” university education is 12-year-olds learning of their inescapable destiny as cosmetologists or car mechanics, and repulsive cement-block buildings memorialize Socialist efforts to ensure free housing.

France, where “yellow vests” — who chop wood since they can’t afford gas heating — protest massive energy taxes levied to prevent climate change. Germany, whose vaunted Energiewendeto renewables is cratering even as it bankrupts consumers. 

The entire Eurozone, where “economic security” translates to a “lost generation” experiencing unemployment rates of 19% to over 40%. Et cetera.

The good news: as Crafty Nancy, and more important, The Donald grasp, the public is smarter than new-look “Democratic Socialists,” and Uncle Bernie’s coming crash in the polls, already underway, will reflect his self-inflicted fall from his preposterous perch. 

Voters saw through Fritz Mondale’s gambit. And America in 2020 will reject a concept of “freedom” paralleling that of failed and, in reality, truly “authoritarian” “Democratic socialist” systems worldwide. 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
XXJefferson#51
1  seeder  XXJefferson#51    4 weeks ago

“Even as he seeks to hang the label of “authoritarian” — a term he used no fewer than 10 times — on President Trump and business interests.

Nice try, Unc. But you got it backwards: such “economic freedom” is the utter antithesis of “true freedom.”

It’s servitude and slavery in the form of abject and outright surrender of self to faraway masters. Who’ll dictate what manner of (and how much) health care, education, housing and retirement you’ll get. Who’ll seize control of any and all means of production or transportation, not to mention living arrangements, in the name of “a clean environment.” And in the process, will appropriate your most precious freedoms, over family and faith. (Note Bernie’s invocation of LGBT “rights” as well.)

Because these bureaucrats don’t share your values or views — and certainly not your aspirations. Their only value is more power, control, and money — until, as Margaret Thatcher put it, they run out of other people’s (meaning your) money. Then they’ll print more, or simply oversee the shared, rationed scarcity they’ve created, versus the “shared prosperity” Uncle Bernie hopes for, alongside social chaos.”

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1    4 weeks ago

what I find interesting is, trump was elected because the previous 8yrs went too far left.

and now the left is going even further left thinking that somehow will get them elected...  


this is what happens when the lunatics run the asylum and start treating their own mental disorders.

 

 

 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2  TᵢG    4 weeks ago
 “Democratic socialism to me requires achieving political and economic freedom in every community.”

Funny thing, here Bernie does actually get it right.   He properly stated a key objective of Democratic Socialism.   It is naive and unrealistic for him to run on such an objective given this is something that would (if ever) evolve over a time period measured in many decades (rather than a 4 or 8 year term).

He also added that 'to me' qualifier indicating that he desires the socialism label (for some reason) but wants to redefine what it means.    I would advise him to just state his positions and forget trying to be a 'socialist'.    

Bernie is comical.

The author, of course, continues to speak of 'socialism' with the common slogan-level nonsense with references to Venezuela, etc.   Even the author must know that Sanders is not proposing anything like the authoritarian nonsense of Venezuela.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  TᵢG @2    4 weeks ago

The author wrote much more about here and Austria and France and the rest of the Eurozone and the failures of democratic socialism in those places much more than the mess in Venezuela.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1    4 weeks ago
... failures of democratic socialism in those places ...

Those 'places' do not have Democratic Socialism in place.    You are (again, in spite of being informed numerous times) conflating Democratic Socialism with social democracy.   If you look at Europe and find 'socialism' what you are looking at is most likely social democracy.

Social democracy is a particularly statist variant of capitalism involving high taxation and government provided services.   Sometimes you will see this described (stupidly) as a mixed economy: capitalism with 'socialism'.   But when people do that they are using 'socialism' to mean extensive public services.   Sometimes they use 'socialism' to mean the presence of state-owned enterprises (state capitalism).

The world is almost entirely based on capitalism.   It ranges from the private sector capitalism predominant in the USA to the State and private capitalism of China to social democracy of Europe to the State capitalism of Venezuela.    If you find a nation where the people themselves have democratic, distributed control over the economy then let me know because you have discovered the first nation in history to implement socialism in actuality rather than in name only.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2    4 weeks ago
Bernie is comical.

Bernie has changed the national debate.

Rather than depend on right-wing sites to understand Bernie, you might want to read his own words...

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2    4 weeks ago

I only rely upon what he says when it comes to his positions.

You actually presume that I get my information from right wing sites?   

Bernie is comical because of his insistence on self-labeling socialist (he really likes being a 'socialist').  He then fixes the obvious impedance mismatch with qualifications such as:

Bernie Sanders:  These are my values, and that is why I call myself a democratic socialist.

Bernie is a progressive Democrat.   He was born far too early to function as a socialist.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.2  katrix  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.1    4 weeks ago
You actually presume that I get my information from right wing sites?   

I went to Foxnews.com today.  Fascinating that there isn't a main story about Trump firing the pollsters who gave him numbers he didn't like.  No wonder Trump supporters are so ignorant of so much that he does.

They did have an article on the coughing thing, which surprised me somewhat.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  katrix @2.2.2    4 weeks ago

I am confident that Trump supporters are doing what partisans always do:   accept and accentuate the positive and ignore or downplay the negative.    Individual supporters are probably not doing much more than noting a good economic cycle, attributing same to the PotUS (as is usually done by both parties) and concluding continued support for Trump.   I doubt there is much deep thought involved.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.1    4 weeks ago

Didactic method: "Prove me wrong!"

Bernie has been slogging uphill for a long time. He has brought the public to a (heretofore unknown) point where discussing "socialism" is perfectly acceptable in polite society.

It's easy to do semantics around "socialism" on an Internet forum... well, maybe not that easy... but bringing that conversation to the general public? I say "Bravo!"

(You're absolutely right, of course, about what is or is not actually socialism.)

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.4    4 weeks ago

I see no value in raising the volume on a label when the label itself has contradictory meaning and the actual meaning is a concept that is inconsistent with the current USA culture.    I can see him writing a book, etc. but running for PotUS on the foundation of 'I am a socialist' is truly ridiculous.

If he really must put a label to his initiatives, Bernie would be better served touting social democracy rather than playing this silly game of 'that is what socialism means to me'.   Beyond the obvious logic, it would make his oft reference to the Nordic nations sensible and would clarify (to those concerned) that he is not out to remove capitalism as the economic system of the USA.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.5    4 weeks ago

Bernie's opponents used to "accuse" him of the high crime of socialism. It really doesn't matter whether they knew they were wrong or not. They were sure that tarring anyone with that label would destroy them. So Bernie went higher and further. He didn't run from his opponents' "horrible insult". He embraced it.

Bernie Sanders just isn't a credible firebrand. Nobody can believe he's a revolutionary, about to set the country afire. So he could talk about socialism. He made that conversation acceptable.

That's a big deal.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.6    4 weeks ago
So he could talk about socialism.

And then proceeded to talk social democracy while calling it 'socialism'.    jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

There is no need to perpetuate the 'this is what I mean by socialism' nonsense.    He should explain his policies and stop trying to provide yet another definition of 'socialism'.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.8  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.5    4 weeks ago

It matters not whether they call themselves Socialist, Democratic Socialists, or Social Democrats, they all share a common core.

That core is FORCED STATIST COLLECTIVISM 

that equates to the authoritarianism Bernie and other Democrats say they are running against.  Arguing these semantics only serves to sidestep accepting the real world consequences that ALL the Democrats are pushing to expand upon.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.9  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.5    4 weeks ago

We haven’t had capitalism since 1890.  Hoover then began over regulating the economy in 1930 and then FDR implemented the crony capitalism of fascism. We have never returned to capitalism  

In 1933 Mussolini claimed that fascism would preserve those elements of capitalism that were deemed beneficial, such as private enterpriseprovided that it would be supervised by the state in fascist economics.[209] However Mussolini claimed that fascism explicitly rejected the typical capitalist elements of economic individualism and laissez-faire.[209] Furthermore, Italian Fascism also acknowledged socialist influences, such as revolutionary syndicalism.[210] Mussolini claimed that in supercapitalism, "[it] is then that a capitalist enterprise, when difficulties arise, throws itself like a dead weight into the state's arms. It is then that state intervention begins and becomes more necessary. It is then that those who once ignored the state now seek it out anxiously."[211] Due to the inability of businesses to operate properly when facing economic difficulties, Mussolini claimed that this proved that state intervention into the economy was necessary to stabilize the economy.[211]

Not long after the creation of the Institute of Industrial Reconstruction, Mussolini boasted in a 1934 speech to his Chamber of Deputies that “Three-fourths of Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state."[159][160] As Italy continued to nationalization its economy, the IRI “became the owner not only of the three most important Italian banks, which were clearly too big to fail, but also of the lion’s share of the Italian industries.”[161]

During this period, Mussolini identified his economic policies with “state capitalism” and “state socialism,” which later was described as “economic dirigisme,” an economic system where the state has the power to direct economic production and allocation of resources.[212] Earlier in 1922, Lenin employed the same phrase to favorably characterize “state capitalism” as an appropriate economic system for Soviet Russia that would encompass “a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control," where, according to Lenin, every state-owned enterprises had to operated on a "profit basis."[213]

By 1939, Fascist Italy attained the highest rate of state–ownership of an economy in the world other than the Soviet Union,[162] where the Italian state “controlled over four-fifths of Italy’s shipping and shipbuilding, three-quarters of its pig iron production and almost half that of steel.”[163]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.8    4 weeks ago
That core is FORCED STATIST COLLECTIVISM 

"I see forced statism everywhere, oh my!"

Calling everything that falls under the label 'socialism' today (a mixed and confused bag) forced statism is ridiculous.   Break it up and make some sense.

I can see a good argument that social democracy is forced (need to qualify this) statist (clearly true) collectivism.   It is also a variant of capitalism, not socialism.   Recognize that.

The political aspects of Democratic Socialism (e.g. the DSA) are trying to make a name for themselves by advertising more social democracy factors and pushing the actual socialism into the realm of long term objectives.   They apparently realize that they will not see democratic socialism in the USA in their lifetimes and are trying instead to dilute capitalism.   

To wit, DSA are not even pushing democratic socialism, they are taking the only politically possible avenue:  social democracy.

Arguing these semantics only serves to sidestep accepting the real world consequences that ALL the Democrats are pushing to expand upon.

So why use these pointless terms?   When someone is advocating higher regulation and taxation of private sector capitalism to fund social programs the correct label for that is 'social democracy'.    If you find someone favoring state ownership and operation of businesses, then you have state capitalism.   If you find someone favoring the state take private property, that is expropriation.   If you find someone favoring larger government that is more involved in economic and social matters, that is statism.    etc.

Crying 'FORCED STATIST COLLECTIVISM' on everything one sees is comical.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.9    4 weeks ago
We haven’t had capitalism since 1890.

That is ridiculous.   I am going to let someone else respond to this.   I do not have sufficient patience at the moment.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.12  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.10    4 weeks ago

even as you make this constant claim as the arbiter of political science definitions, the FACTS state we have a Forced STATIST COLLECTIVIST Government and EVERY Democrat is running on expanding upon this.

if you were actually honest in debate you would acknowledge this fact. Then you could opine on your support or disagreement with this ideology.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.13  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.11    4 weeks ago

 I’ll let Capitalism Magazine respond

“America formally abandoned capitalism with the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. Since that time, businessmen have increasingly used political connections to achieve their business ends. Whether they are lobbying for tougher standards on light bulbs (GE), or using eminent domain to seize private property (Donald Trump), or requesting subsidies for wind farms (T. Boone Pickens), they seek to use the power of government to squelch competitors, artificially inflate prices, or gain some other advantage. Unable to convince consumers and competitors to act voluntarily, they resort to government force.

The proper name for such a system is fascism. In a fascist system, property is privately “owned,” but its use is dictated and controlled by government officials. Consider the mountains of regulations that govern and control virtually every industry, from the financial sector to health care, from food to broadcasting, from land development to manufacturing. Consider the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies: OSHA, EPA, SEC, FAA, FTC, FDA, and more. Virtually no activity escapes the control and regulation of some government agency.

When government officials have such immense powers, individuals and businesses seek to influence the use of that power. They make campaign donations, offer investment opportunities, and provide other perks to politicians. In exchange, Congressmen use their political power to benefit their cronies. What cannot be achieved in a boardroom is achieved in a Congressional hearing room. This is not capitalism.”

http://capitalismmagazine.com/author/BrianPhillips/

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.14  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.11    4 weeks ago

“Let me dissent sharply from that conventional wisdom and argue that what talking heads are calling “capitalism” is actually “crony capitalism” and that it is crony capitalism that is responsible for most of our current economic difficulties.

A genuine capitalist economy assumes that each adult individual and business is free to buy and sell anything that they own and then keep the rewards (or suffer the losses) of enterprise. The only legitimate role for government (the political system) is to protect property rights, that is, to enforce contracts and prohibit theft and fraud.

So under capitalism, there would be no price controls on milk or mandates to purchase health insurance; BUT polluters who spill crude oil or corporate bandits like Bernie Madoff who commit blatant frauds would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Crony capitalism, by contrast, assumes a far, far larger role for government in the economy. In this system, government employs various regulations, taxes, and subsidies to encourage or discourage specific economic activity that the political system considers desirable. For example, in crony capitalism, farm prices and outputs could be regulated; selected companies could get TARP money for commercial research projects; states could regulate liability and health insurance companies; and Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae could both exist to subsidize the real estate market.

And most importantly, in crony capitalism private firms that are considered “too big to fail” could be bailed out by government; and a central bank (the Federal Reserve) would exist to “print money” (unrelated to any gold reserve) and regulate the supply of credit in the economy”

DOMINICK T. ARMENTANO is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and professor emeritus in economics at the University of Hartford (CT).

http://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=2783

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.15  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.12    4 weeks ago
Forced STATIST COLLECTIVIST

The problem I see with your position is that you go to the extremes.    

I will explain by breaking this down:

forced:   Any nation that imposes laws must enforce same.   Thus virtually every civil society employs force.    You use the adjective 'forced' as if force is unusual.

statist:   Virtually every civil society is statist in some way.   They all have governments that are involved in the economy and social matters.    

collectivist:  A civil society cannot operate fully individualist.   There are aspects where collectivism is necessary.   For example, consider the general area of defense.   If soldiers did not place the group (and ultimately the nation) above themselves there would be no military.

The key is degree - not running to the extremes (as you always do).   Some force and some statism and some collectivism is necessary.   

Your arguments and the use of all caps connotes extreme positions.   It is the extreme positions that are ridiculous and most likely cause people to shake their heads at your words and move on.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.14    4 weeks ago

Crony capitalism is an increasing problem.   It is 'bad capitalism'.   

Labeling the entirety of capitalism in the USA as crony capitalism is both extreme and naive.

Ridiculous, extreme and emotional.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.17  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.14    4 weeks ago
So under capitalism, there would be no price controls on milk or mandates to purchase health insurance; BUT polluters who spill crude oil or corporate bandits like Bernie Madoff who commit blatant frauds would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

So we would have to wait until AFTER some milk was poisoned by unsanitary bottling conditions or after our water supply was poisioned by polluters to take action to redress it. 

This of course makes no sense to the potential or actual victims, who will have preferred to have the possibility of poisoning dealt with before it happened,  through regulation. 

Most Americans will never agree with you about this stuff, which is why you are a fringe element in this society. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.18  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.16    4 weeks ago

“The “America is a capitalist country” myth... Debunked!!”

It could be argued that since the money is controlled by the government, we live in what is in many respects a partially centrally planned economy. 

https://thepolicy.us/the-america-is-a-capitalist-country-myth-debunked-8c3191dfd84a?gi=7a2d69545377

Economic Inequality: There is No Economic Determinism Under Capitalism

BY THOMAS SOWELL | OCT 6, 2015 | CULTURE, INEQUALITY

https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2015/10/economic-inequality-there-is-no-economic-determinism-under-capitalism/

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/686474

http://www.aei.org/publication/quotation-day-legal-plunder-crony-capitalism/

https://stream.org/report-crony-capitalism-hurts-us-economy/

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.18    4 weeks ago

Do you not understand the defining characteristics of capitalism?   Capitalism is first an economic system.  What characteristics in your world define a capitalist economy?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.20  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.17    4 weeks ago

Yes John we know you love being a slave of the State.

and my views only seem fringe to those who love the Marxist State

most of my friends are either small government conservatives or small “l”libertarians like myself.  And it’s growing with young adults

Libertarianism growing even with young adults

“One fifth of under-30s describe themselves as libertarians, but most Americans reject the label

YouGov's latest research shows that, overall, 15% of Americans say that they would describe themselves as a libertarian, while 53% would not. 32% aren't sure either way. Younger Americans, however, are much more likely to describe themselves as libertarian or to be unsure of whether or not they are libertarian. 20% of under-30s describe themselves as libertarian, while only 39% of the Millennial age group reject the label of libertarian.”

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/04/13/millennials-libertarian

https://yaliberty.org/about/

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.21  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.19    4 weeks ago

I’ve studied it for over 60 years.

capitalism is the freedom to engage in economic commerce without constraints or manipulation by government 

From Capitalism Magazine 

“Capitalism is an economic system based on the principle of every individual’s right to his own life, his own liberty and his own honestly acquired property. This private property includes his own mind and body, and the physical products that his mental and physical efforts have produced.”

The bedrock concept behind a definition or explanation of “Capitalism” is private property. That is, the idea that an individual has a right of ownership and exclusive use of something. For the classical liberal, the most fundamental property right possessed by an individual is to his own person. In other words, an individual owns himself. He may not legally or informally be treated and used as the slave of another person. The individual has ownership over his mind and his body. Neither may be controlled or commanded by another through the use of force or its threat.

This implies that if each and every human being has such a right of private ownership over himself, then all associations and relationships between individual human beings should and must be based upon voluntary consent and mutual agreement. No person may be forced or defrauded into an exchange, trade, or associative relationship.

The classical liberal also believes that if this principle is followed among the community of men and women, it tends to create a social setting in which respect and tolerance of others and their choice of how to live is more likely to be fostered. Thus, it generates, in various ways, a more humane society. People have need for each other’s assistance and companionship in sundry ways. If force may not be used and only free consent can serve as the basis of those connections among human beings, then it behooves individuals to act with courtesy, deference and implied dignity toward others, if successful networks of human association are to be possible.

It does not mean that rude, disrespectful and even cruel words and deeds may not happen among people. But it does mean that there are costs of doing so, since those treated in this manner are less likely to willingly and happily enter into exchanges or other types of relationships with those who treat them in these negative ways. Some might not care and proceed to act in these disrespectful and intolerant ways, anyway. But for most people the benefits of peaceful and mutually accepted relationships willingly entered into offers greater pay-offs in the long-run than permitting free rein to one’s prejudices in antagonizing others in the here and now.

Furthermore, in a society of voluntary association, courtesy, respect, deference, and politeness become the social norms over time, and those who fail to act in such ways toward others (no matter how some of them might feel “inside”), are faced with possible social ostracism or criticism for their “bad behavior.” This reduces those individuals’ chances for better attaining their own goals and purposes for which they need the cooperation of their fellow human beings. (See my article, “Free Markets Refine Good Manners”.)

The capitalist system generates the institutional framework and incentive structure that leaves everyone free as an individual to live his own life, enjoy his personal liberty, and use his private property as his peacefully and honestly considers best for his own betterment. But that very institutional framework and incentive structure of voluntary association and exchange in an emergent network of interdependent division of labor creates the setting in which it becomes in everyone’s self-interest to primarily focus their knowledge, skills and abilities in their production activities to satisfy the self-interested wants of others as the means to advance their own goals and purposes in society.”

Dr. Richard M. Ebeling is the recently appointed BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel. He was formerly professor of Economics at Northwood University, president of The Foundation for Economic Education (2003–2008), was the Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College (1988–2003) in Hillsdale, Michigan, and served as vice president of academic affairs for The Future of Freedom Foundation (1989–2003).

https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2017/11/what-capitalism-is-and-what-capitalism-is-not-part-1-of-2/

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.21    4 weeks ago
I’ve studied it for over 60 years.

When you oft claim you have studied something for 60 years and still get it wrong it sort of diminishes the credibility of anything you write.   Ever consider that?

capitalism is the freedom to engage in economic commerce without constraints or manipulation by government 

Where do you find capitalism in action without government constraints?   Apparently you think capitalism is a system where there are no government constraints and people are free to produce and trade with the only constraints being what the individuals decide.    Which nation has such a system?   

“Capitalism is an economic system based on the principle of every individual’s right to his own life, his own liberty and his own honestly acquired property. This private property includes his own mind and body, and the physical products that his mental and physical efforts have produced.”

Capitalism magazine does get one important factor correct:

  • economic system - it defines capitalism as a type of economic system.   Correct.   That is a critical defining characteristic.

It gets other factors wrong:

  • ... based on the principle of every individual’s right to his own life, his own liberty and his own honestly acquired property.  - Uh, no.   Those are not rights provided by capitalism.   Those are socio-political rights.   This is not a defining characteristic for capitalism.
  • This private property includes his own mind and body, and the physical products that his mental and physical efforts have produced. - No again.   The ability to own personal property (which is what this is describing but using the wrong word) is not a defining characteristic for capitalism either.

Capitalism is first and foremost an economic system wherein the productive resources of society are controlled by a minority.   In the case of the USA, the minority are the owners of businesses in the private sector.   At the upper tier (where the major power and influence exists) you will find the richest citizens in concert with the highest levels of government.   

Capitalism necessarily has an associated socio-political system which protects property rights, enables the allocation of resources, negotiates trade, provides defense, enforces laws, etc.   Without this system of law and enforcement capitalism (or any other economic system) could not survive.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.23  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.22    4 weeks ago

You’re laughable.  Once again everyone else including conservative economiproponents and professors of capitalism are wrong and you are the one who gets it right.

talk to me when you can admit that others might know more and better than you

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.23    4 weeks ago
You’re laughable. Once again everyone else including conservative economiproponents and professors of capitalism are wrong and you are the one who gets it right.
talk to me when you can admit that others might know more and better than you

Well said!

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.25  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.23    4 weeks ago

I see no rebuttal to the points I made.  Going personal is not a rebuttal.

TiG @2.2.23 - Capitalism is first and foremost an economic system wherein the productive resources of society are controlled by a minority.   In the case of the USA, the minority are the owners of businesses in the private sector.   At the upper tier (where the major power and influence exists) you will find the richest citizens in concert with the highest levels of government.

Show me where this is incorrect.

TiG @2.2.23 - Capitalism necessarily has an associated socio-political system which protects property rights, enables the allocation of resources, negotiates trade, provides defense, enforces laws, etc.   Without this system of law and enforcement capitalism (or any other economic system) could not survive.

Show me where this   is incorrect.

Good luck.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.23    4 weeks ago

In addition, no answers from you on these:

TiG@2.2.2 ☛ Where do you find capitalism in action without government constraints?   Apparently you think capitalism is a system where there are no government constraints and people are free to produce and trade with the only constraints being what the individuals decide.    Which nation has such a system?
 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.27  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.26    4 weeks ago

Our nation was formed on that basis. Power to rule crept in and with it the desire to control others including free enterprise 

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but thgey mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

 -- Daniel Webster, speech at Niblo’s Saloon, New York, March 15, 1837

John Locke purpose of Government -Second Treatise on Government 

"In the state of nature, all men are equal to one another because they were created as such by God. They are to seek the preservation of mankind and refrain from interfering with other men’s life, liberty, and possessions. Reason is what guides men in this state of nature, for if they comprehend that preserving other men will lead to their own preservation, then the state of nature is ideal. If any violation of this natural law occurs, all men are able to punish the offender because that man is disrupting this state of perfect freedom and is thus violating the rights of all men.  

Property consists of a man's life as well as his possessions (material goods and land). God commanded Adam and his posterity to work on the land; this labor is what gives the land value and what then constitutes a man's possessions. In a state of nature, men are to respect other men's property, but this is not always the reality. Government is thus created to protect and preserve men's property; this is considered its most significant purpose and the most common reason why the people in a state of nature consent to be governed.”

And from Jefferson

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." 

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1816

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.28  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.27    4 weeks ago
Our nation was formed on that basis. Power to rule crept in and with it the desire to control others including free enterprise 

I can see you are responding to my post @2.2.26 but where are you answering the questions I posed?

TiG@2.2.2☛ Where do you find capitalism in action without government constraints? Apparently you think capitalism is a system where there are no government constraints and people are free to produce and trade with the only constraints being what the individuals decide.   Which nation has such a system?

If you are trying to argue that our nation is the example of capitalism sans government constraints then you should read what you quoted:

It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.
Government is thus created to protect and preserve men's property; this is considered its most significant purpose and the most common reason why the people in a state of nature consent to be governed.”

Do you not recognize government constraints here?   How does a government protect against bad intentions and protect property if it imposes no constraints?   No constraints means no law and no enforcement.   Without property laws, etc. capitalism (and most other -isms) cannot exist.   Our nation (and not uniquely) provided an environment through law which enabled capitalism.

In what way do you think this answers the questions I posed?


Got anything for @2.2.25?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.29  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.28    4 weeks ago

you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of who is being constrained 

it is to constrain Government first and foremost 

secondly it offers constraint through the guarantee of protection of property against seizure by others 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.30  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.28    4 weeks ago

James Madison’s 1792 Essay on Property ranks alongside Locke’s 2nd Treatise on Government in explaining the true meaning of Government at its best

excerpted

Madison 1792 Letter on Property

James Madison, Property

29 Mar. 1792

originalPapers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.”

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.31  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.28    4 weeks ago

It is incorrect to state that capitalism is for a minority to control the assets of production. That would be true of state controlled crony capitalism.  True capitalism advocates for opportunity for everyone, while recognizing that not everyone will take advantage of that liberty.

as to 2.2.23, it is misstated. In a capitalist system, government’s role is to protect our property, has nothing to do with government allocating resources.does not necessarily require government to negotiate trade

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.32  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.29    4 weeks ago
you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of who is being constrained 

This is not complicated.

For capitalism (or any other -ism) to work a government must be in place to establish and enforce rules.

Rules are constraints.

If you think capitalism (etc.) can operate without an environment which enables the ability to establish and own a business, to protect property, to engage in legally binding contracts, etc. then do your absolute best to demonstrate how this is accomplished.

I predict you will fail in the attempt.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.2.33  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.6    4 weeks ago

Socialism is a hate crime against humanity. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.34  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.30    4 weeks ago
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses.

This is an excerpt from your quote.   You reply without quoting what you are trying to rebut.   And then fail to express a point of your own but dump quotes from other people.   

What exactly are you trying to argue?   I ask because you seem to be trying to support the position I have stated that capitalism (or any other -ism) needs a government in place to establish and enforce rules - to create an environment in which it can operate.   It is as if you do not understand what I have written and re-written.   

Capitalism does not exist in isolation.   It requires an environment (the infrastructure of civil society) to maintain order and mitigate dishonest practices.   Clearly your quoted sources agree so what do you think you are debating?


Yet again, you do not address the questions I asked:

TiG@2.2.2 ☛ Where do you find capitalism in action without government constraints? Apparently you think capitalism is a system where there are no government constraints and people are free to produce and trade with the only constraints being what the individuals decide.   Which nation has such a system?
 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.35  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2    4 weeks ago
Bernie has changed the national debate.

True.  He has greatly increased the number of moderates who roll their eyes at the Democratic Party. 

Rather than depend on right-wing sites to understand Bernie, you might want to read his own words...

That is hysterically funny.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.31    4 weeks ago
It is incorrect to state that capitalism is for a minority to control the assets of production.

Capitalism is defined that way.   Ownership and thus control of the productive resources (MoP/MoD) is the most obvious factor for distinguishing capitalism from socialism.   

That would be true of state controlled crony capitalism.  

It is true for any variant of capitalism.   As soon as it is not true you will not have capitalism.   If you have an economic system where the people have distributed control over the productive resources of the economy you ipso facto have some form of socialism.   If the owners vastly outnumber the non-owners (or if no non-owners exist) you no longer have capitalism.

True capitalism advocates for opportunity for everyone, while recognizing that not everyone will take advantage of that liberty.

Capitalism does indeed provide opportunities for most everyone; it is the best economic system we have implemented thus far.   But that is not what distinguishes capitalism.   Capitalism is distinguished by private ownership of the productive resources of the economy by a minority (the capitalists) who direct their businesses, hire employees, generate profit and use the profit as they see fit.   Same happens in crony capitalism (a variant of capitalism) but in this case there is collusion between economic factors and political factors to yield favoritism (unfair competitive advantage).

In a capitalist system, government’s role is to protect our property, ...

Yes, in part.   Glad we got past this now.

... has nothing to do with government allocating resources

I wrote 'enables the allocation of resources'.   That means providing methods and rules wherein resources needed by the economy are allocated.   I did not write that the government does the allocating; government provides the means by which the allocation is made.   Try to operate as an energy company without government providing the means to excavate, harvest, refine, distribute and sell.   The allocation of resources is done by business (typically) but this does not exist unless such allocation is enabled by the government.

... does not necessarily require government to negotiate trade

If we do not have a trade relationship with a foreign nation that puts a bit of a damper on private enterprise tapping the resources of the nation, buying and selling with that nation, etc.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.37  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.33    4 weeks ago

What do you mean by 'socialism'?

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.2.38  dennis smith  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.6    4 weeks ago

Sanders has self defeated himself once again. He needs to apply for a job at KFC so he can be called Colonel Sanders.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.3  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2    4 weeks ago
Even the author must know that Sanders is not proposing anything like the authoritarian nonsense of Venezuela.

Nobody proposes authoritarian systems.  They propose "economic freedom", which then devolves into "authoritarian nonsense".

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3    4 weeks ago
They propose "economic freedom", which then devolves into "authoritarian nonsense".

But that does not mean that an individual proposing economic freedom is pushing policies that lead into authoritarian nonsense.    Note that capitalism is oft described as economic freedom.   When you hear people speaking of economic freedom and offer policies such as less burdensome regulations on the private sector, do you consider that the road to authoritarian rule?

It depends on the specifics, right?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.3.2  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.3.1    4 weeks ago

Starting with the end and working backwards.....

It depends on the specifics, right?

Absolutely.  However in my experience, most often such proposed changes are relatively dramatic, capricious, and very beneficial to their proponents.  If they are enacted, chaos ensues.  The confusion benefits the proponents even more.

But that does not mean that an individual proposing economic freedom is pushing policies that lead into authoritarian nonsense. 

In theory, no.  Unfortunately, by the time the individual begins using the phrase "economic freedom" the concept their touting generally represents a large enough change from the current programs that chaos is on the way.

  Note that capitalism is oft described as economic freedom.   When you hear people speaking of economic freedom and offer policies such as less burdensome regulations on the private sector, do you consider that the road to authoritarian rule?

Sometimes, yes.  Deregulation tends to tilt the playing field in favor of large enterprise and against smaller ones.

On the whole, Capitalism is a bit different than other systems because it is the status quo in the US.  If we were a socialist system, then a wholesale change to capitalism would be capricious and likely to devolve quickly.  (witness Russia and the new oligarchy)

We are a country of 330 million people.  That's not a speed boat, it's a cruise ship.  It doesn't turn quickly without massive problems including but not limited to the risk of total capsize.

As you've noted many, many times, and changes toward a more socially controlled economy would need to be slow and incremental.  That's actually true of almost any change in a country this large and diverse.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3.2    4 weeks ago
Sometimes, yes.  Deregulation tends to tilt the playing field in favor of large enterprise and against smaller ones.

You consider that going down the road to authoritarian rule?   Seems more like corporatocracy or plutocracy (given cronyism).   Regardless, my point was that a politician touting economic freedom can mean quite a few things and certainly does not exclusive translate into authoritarian rule.   The specifics matter.   Your post did not persuade me otherwise.

I have no disagreement with the balance of your post.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.3.4  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.3.3    4 weeks ago
You consider that going down the road to authoritarian rule?

Taken to its extremes, yes.  

   Seems more like corporatocracy or plutocracy (given cronyism).

Which can be very authoritarian, as Vladimir Putin can verify.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.3.5  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3.4    4 weeks ago
Taken to its extremes, yes.  

Extremes are usually unlikely.

Which can be very authoritarian, as Vladimir Putin can verify.

I was thinking more in terms of the USA.   Russia has always been strikingly different than the USA is myriad dimensions.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.3.6  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.3.5    4 weeks ago
Extremes are usually unlikely.

Sure.  But we're talking about "the road".  

I was thinking more in terms of the USA.   Russia has always been strikingly different than the USA is myriad dimensions.

Sure, but the authoritarianism of the barely regulated oligarchy is there for all to see.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.3.7  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3.6    4 weeks ago

Indeed it is.  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @2    4 weeks ago

Sanders has been a proponent of Venezuala's socialist azzdouchery.   That he attempts to mask it with the ante term Democratic isn't fooling me.   Can't say the same for you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.4    4 weeks ago
Sanders has been a proponent of Venezuala's socialist azzdouchery.

Then his looseness with the term 'socialism' is worse than I thought.

Can't say the same for you.

What is that supposed to mean?   

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

Here's my profile of a democratic-socialist:

One who just graduated college, has a mountain of student debt, yet can't find a fitting job and currently lives in mom & dad's basement.  


 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    4 weeks ago

Bernie is 77 years old.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1    4 weeks ago

And we are still waiting for him to grow up. 

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1.2  WallyW  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1    4 weeks ago

And he still hasn't learned a damn thing.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  WallyW @3.1.2    4 weeks ago
And he still hasn't learned a damn thing.

Would you really measure yourself against him, Wally? Kinda pretentious, no?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1    4 weeks ago

He's selling the shit. The buyers are those angry kids

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  WallyW @3.1.2    4 weeks ago
And he still hasn't learned a damn thing.

Nonsense.  He is an absolute expert at pandering to the far left.  He exploits their inability to do basic math and preys upon the emotions that control them.  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.6  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1    4 weeks ago

And still sucking off the government Teet 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1.7  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.5    4 weeks ago

You are both right.  Well said.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1.8  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.6    4 weeks ago

That is democratic socialism...

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.9  Freedom Warrior  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1.8    4 weeks ago

Sanders is an avowed Socialist.  He uses the reference to Democratic Socialism to broaden his appeal.  It's all phony as we well know.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    4 weeks ago
One who just graduated college, has a mountain of student debt, yet can't find a fitting job and currently lives in mom & dad's basement. 

That would be a person who would vote for a guy like Bernie.   The individual is not a democratic socialist (a sub-category of socialism in general), he is an advocate of what democratic socialism 'means to' Bernie.

I think you described a person who sees value in social democracy - at least until s/he finds an appropriate job.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    4 weeks ago

I think I'm describing a person who feels the system dosen't work.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.1    4 weeks ago

Yes, but you were also implying that the individual finds Bernie's policies to be a solution.   Ergo an advocate of social democracy (which is what Bernie is selling).

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.2    4 weeks ago

Yes, just like the forgotten millions found Donald Trump to be a solution.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.3    4 weeks ago

Spot on.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4  Texan1211    4 weeks ago

Democrats will have some hard choices to make. For many, Clinton wasn't left enough for them in 2016, For many others, Bernie is too far left today for them.

Is the Democratic Party the party of mainly old white men or the party of diversity with new (old) ideas?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Texan1211 @4    4 weeks ago

Good questions...still unanswered....

 
 
 
Sunshine
5  Sunshine    4 weeks ago
Roared the Vermonter: “It is my very strong belief that the United States must … find the moral conviction to choose a different path, a higher path, a path of compassion, justice and love. It is the path that I call democratic socialism.”

wtf is a Democrat Socialist? Bernie and his made up words...he is having a identity crisis.  I thought he was an Independent.

And he can't even afford a comb.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Sunshine @5    4 weeks ago
wtf is Democrat Socialist?

It's a Marxist that wants you to elect them democratically and then destroy the entire Constitutional Republic and replace it with the dictator of the proletarian and call it the Utopian society.

Next question please......

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
5.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @5    4 weeks ago

It is a category of socialism.   Theories which fall under the category of democratic socialism typically are based on a free market economy, higher degrees of political democracy, workplace democracy, etc.    One of the more well known theories in this category is Economic Democracy.    It is all theoretical.

Bernie did not invent the term, but he is misusing it in reference to his policies.   Bernie is advocating social democracy, a very different system that is a variant of capitalism.   He is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America who also have been trying to push their agenda through the auspices of social democracy since the latter is far better understood, accepted and possible than the former.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.2.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @5.2    4 weeks ago

I'm just in it for the bumper stickers like "property is theft" and I like calling people comrade.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.2.1    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.2.3  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.2    4 weeks ago

I mean what is hipper than wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt to a women's march with a pink crotch hat on?

Sure way to hook up with the 20 something post protest one night stand. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
5.2.4  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.2.1    4 weeks ago

Greetings Comrade Badfish!  

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.2.5  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @5.2.4    4 weeks ago

Remember Comrade, embrace those who embrace Marxism and report the others.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
5.2.6  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.2.5    4 weeks ago

The Commie way.  Tell on your family and peers and be rewarded by the state.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

KDMichigan
Sean Treacy
Tacos!
Ozzwald
Snuffy
PJ
arkpdx
bugsy
CB
Krishna




JohnRussell


78 visitors