Democratic Socialism

[Orangeburst]

No question. If you get one more like that the 2nd Amendment is done too. That's why this election is so important

How old is Breyer now?

 

[McDad]

I disagree with your disagreement! : )
Social spending is not socialism. The first is garnered from a *market* system via taxation from personal incomes and private enterprise. Socialism replaces a market system as a competing and incompatible economic system. Subsidies mean the market is certainly less free market, but doesn't make it not a market system.

An interesting perspective. If your contrast between the two systems is accurate, did Marx get his famous quote wrong? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Does socialism only exist in a 100% socialistic system? Or does it exist as 'each' has ability and 'each' have a need?

 

[RavinDave]

Bernie basically wants to institute a wealth tax on everyone worth $32mill or more.

5th Amendment:



How is that Constitutional? Who wants to live in a country where the gov't can take your private property? If it's Constitutional to take it from millionaires, it's Constitutional to take it from all of us.

Seriously, think about this for a minute and tell me if this is America

I think the key words there are “due process of law”. So an EO won’t cut it but if the Dems get control of the Senate, hold the House and put Bernie in the WH it’s Katie bar the door.

 

[McDad]

I have no idea where you get that from. I don't see anything like that:

Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Aren't your definitions missing a phrase?... should be owned or regulated by the community...

Subsidies regulate what can be grown and how much. Correct?

 

[Septic]

I’ll make a prediction.. (if Bernie gets in ) , since he already has a plan to eliminate competition buy doing away with private insurance , the next steps will be doing away with Big Pharma and having the government assume that rolls as well .

He ain't gettin' in.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Sure: Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of the enterprise... as well as the political theories and movements associated with such systems

See? You favorably skip past the defining element "characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of the enterprise" to magnify the insignificant. The "political, social" aspects are add-ons (dessert), skin hung on the meat and bones (ownership of production) of the socialist beast.

Let's do it slowly; without socialism as an economic system, there is no socialist society. That's what YOUR reference tell us.

Your point holds squat; you might as well say food - though scant - is "of a socialist society". Further, since socialist government owns the production, how can it subsidize itself?

Elements of a market economy and a socialist economy can be combined into a mixed economy. And in fact, most modern countries operate with a mixed economic system; government and private individuals both influence production and distribution. I'm sure that you are familiar with Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations"... everyone who has ever had an economics class should be. In this book, Smith writes that there are only two archetypes in economic affairs - socialism and capitalism - and every real system is a combination of these archetypes. But because of the differences in these archetypes, there is an inherent challenge in the philosophy of a mixed economy and it becomes a never-ending balancing act between predictable obedience to the state and the unpredictable consequences of individual behavior. The United States is obviously, a mixed economy. I'm sure you will not argue, otherwise, if you do in fact know anything about economics.

 

[NCFisher]

An interesting perspective. If your contrast between the two systems is accurate, did Marx get his famous quote wrong? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Does socialism only exist in a 100% socialistic system? Or does it exist as 'each' has ability and 'each' have a need?

Marx wasn't referring to socialism:
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common within the socialist movement. For example, August Becker in 1844 described it as the basic principle of communism[6] and Louis Blanc used it in 1851.[7] The origin of this phrasing has also been attributed to the French utopian Étienne-Gabriel Morelly,[8][9] who proposed in his 1755 Code of Nature "Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society", including:[10]

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - Wikipedia ​

Remember, Marx saw socialism (economic system) as merely a transition period from capitalism (economic system) to communism, not as a viable form of societal organization, Whatever political or social constructs accompany it, socialism is first and foremost an economic system.

 

[Sea Ray]

I think the key words there are “due process of law”. So an EO won’t cut it but if the Dems get control of the Senate, hold the House and put Bernie in the WH it’s Katie bar the door.

I disagree. The key words are: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " Those words protect the gov't from coming in and taking my private property. Otherwise there are no Constitutional protections for the gov't to come in and take all of our stuff like fascist regimes have done all over the world. If we don't have protection from that then we don't have anything.

Bernie has made no bones about his purpose. This comes right from his website:

Will raise an estimated $4.35 trillion over the next decade and cut the wealth of billionaires in half over 15 years, which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.

So does the gov't have the right to just come in and take the wealth of billionaires? As a matter of principle, doesn't this scare you? It sure does me...

 

[Sea Ray]

Aren't your definitions missing a phrase?... should be owned or regulated by the community...

Subsidies regulate what can be grown and how much. Correct?

They aren't my definitions. They come from Websters. They are as stated

 

[McDad]

Marx wasn't referring to socialism:
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common within the socialist movement. For example, August Becker in 1844 described it as the basic principle of communism[6] and Louis Blanc used it in 1851.[7] The origin of this phrasing has also been attributed to the French utopian Étienne-Gabriel Morelly,[8][9] who proposed in his 1755 Code of Nature "Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society", including:[10]

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.​

II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.​

III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - Wikipedia ​

Remember, Marx saw socialism (economic system) as merely a transition period from capitalism (economic system) to communism, not as a viable form of societal organization, Whatever political or social constructs accompany it, socialism is first and foremost an economic system.

Good historical information. Appreciate the well thought reply and the quotes. Did you not add credence to my stance on subsidies being de facto socialism with this post, though? If the quote is originally attributed to socialists, aren't subsidies taking from those who have to give to those who need for the purpose of regulating production?
I agree it is happening outside of a purely socialistic system. Although I could easily be persuaded America is in transition from capitalism to communism via socialism (just as Marx saw the transition).

 

[McDad]

They aren't my definitions. They come from Websters. They are as stated

Unfortunately Merriam Webster omitted the 'or regulation' phrase.

 

[Wireless1]

The polls in those states, indicate that they are. Trump's largest core constituency is comprised of white men over 40, who do not have a college degree and live in a household which earns less than $50,000 annually.

The Republican Party is the party of Jethro and Lulu, who attend Trump rallies and rail against the evils of socialism.... but an hour later pay for their groceries with food stamps on the way back to their public housing residence.

Can you collect food stamps on $50K

 

[RavinDave]

I disagree. The key words are: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " Those words protect the gov't from coming in and taking my private property. Otherwise there are no Constitutional protections for the gov't to come in and take all of our stuff like fascist regimes have done all over the world. If we don't have protection from that then we don't have anything.

Bernie has made no bones about his purpose. This comes right from his website:



So does the gov't have the right to just come in and take the wealth of billionaires? As a matter of principle, doesn't this scare you? It sure does me...

Well it does scare me. It’s a very slippery slope. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

 

[zeppelin128]

 

[zeppelin128]

 

[BowlBrother85]

I have no idea where you get that from. I don't see anything like that:

Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

@McDad was right. In a purely socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government, and individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare. The government determines the output and pricing levels of these goods and services. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about socialist policies within a mixed economy. Your definitions are fine, but they are limited in scope to what we are discussing. The United States has a mixed economy. It works according to an economics system that features characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. A mixed economic system protects private property and allows a level of economic freedom in the use of capital, but also allows for governments to intervene in economic activities in order to achieve social aims and for the public good. That is what subsidies do. They don't take ownership of the production and distribution but they influence .... or regulate them. Subsidies are a socialist policy.

 

[AM64]

I think that's an apt way to phrase it. Both were/are sold as a technocratic, science-based perfecting of man and society.
In practice there's no difference between socialism and communism; both are totalitarian whether nationalist or Marxist, and why the West abandoned it last century.

I'll have to admit I studied engineering and stayed as far away from subjects like political science and the like as possible, so I am completely lacking in some of the finer skills and definitions used for topics like socialism vs communism. To me it's just the same basic concept with a difference in the degree of enforcement. I just call it as I see it because I've never liked debate about thing that are seemingly based on nebulous definitions of gray.

It's the same with a lot of legal decisions; for example, the SC decided a Mexican boy's parents couldn't sue a US Border Patrol agent because the kid had skipped back across the border making it an international incident. My answer would be they can't sue because they aren't citizens and don't have the legal protections provided by our Constitution. We need answers that make sense rather than complexity that allows people arguing points to show off mental dexterity while being completely indecisive and hiding behind long winded blather.

 

[AM64]

How old is Breyer now?

The judge was an old man (Too old) Ninety-three (Entirely too old)

and for 72

I didn't like the way the jury looked at me. (I think they were suspicious.)

He's 82 ... entirely too old.

 

[hmanvolfan]

 

[AM64]

I disagree. The key words are: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " Those words protect the gov't from coming in and taking my private property. Otherwise there are no Constitutional protections for the gov't to come in and take all of our stuff like fascist regimes have done all over the world. If we don't have protection from that then we don't have anything.

Bernie has made no bones about his purpose. This comes right from his website:



So does the gov't have the right to just come in and take the wealth of billionaires? As a matter of principle, doesn't this scare you? It sure does me...

I'd bet a lot of people hear "wealth" and think "income". Those who make the real distinction probably fall into two camps ... scared witless, or those old white guys are gonna get it now. The second one is what hooked the Russians so long ago.

 

[Orangeburst]

and for 72


He's 82 ... entirely too old.

There might be 3 up in next 5 years. Could you imagine Trump picking 5?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Is that a commercial that the Trump campaign is running ahead of the South Carolina Democratic Party primary? That is unusual. I don't think that I've ever seen an incumbent candidate from another party running attack ads against a singular candidate just ahead of the opposing party's primary before. I'm not sure that such an ad would hurt Biden. That only further emphasizes who Trump doesn't want to face in the general election... which is really the only reason to vote for Joe Biden in the first place. Trump should just allow Bernie, Bloomberg and Steyer to run the attacks against Biden and sit out of it.

 

[AM64]

There might be 3 up in next 5 years. Could you imagine Trump picking 5?

Kinda make you giddy. Especially when you think about the libs having to face up to that.

 

[Orangeburst]

Kinda make you giddy. Especially when you think about the libs having to face up to that.

Considering where these old school justices put our nation, I could not imagine some modern progressives on the court.

 

[hmanvolfan]

Is that a commercial that the Trump campaign is running ahead of the South Carolina Democratic Party primary? That is unusual. I don't think that I've ever seen an incumbent candidate from another party running attack ads against a singular candidate just ahead of the opposing party's primary before. I'm not sure that such an ad would hurt Biden. That only further emphasizes who Trump doesn't want to face in the general election... which is really the only reason to vote for Joe Biden in the first place. Trump should just allow Bernie, Bloomberg and Steyer to run the attacks against Biden and sit out of it.

Yeah all the television ads by both parties nine months before the election will have a huge impact on the election.