Democratic Socialism

[37L1]

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.

You just defined a lawyer/politician.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Exactly correct. This is where I am more in line with Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar, and depart from Bernie. It is simply an option. Same for employers.

So you can get the same coverage, maybe even better, and without the indecipherable and mystifying confusion of copays and deductibles and rate acceptances with weird bills showing up 5 months later, and go see your own doctor as before, and for 70 % of what you (or your employer) pay now.

Totally up to you whether to continue to pay way more than you need to.

You are not delusional enough to believe that would be the case however. Everyone will be forced to fund yet another government sanctioned Ponzi scheme. No thanks.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Sweden.

 

[0nelilreb]

Sweden.

It’s just because they aren’t doing it right . Bernie will do it the right way .

 

[BreatheUT]

You are not delusional enough to believe that would be the case however. Everyone will be forced to fund yet another government sanctioned Ponzi scheme. No thanks.

Not to mention Bernie is advocating the proliferation of marijuana which potentially opens the door for additional addictions and criminal activity. Also, who is going to be motivated for government to control their pay check. Another failed government program with long lines and them deciding your fate with long wait lines.

 

[Sea Ray]

Sweden.

I've touched on this and the Republicans need to slam this to the American people because our worthless Press will not. This is the sort of thing Anderson Cooper should have hit Bernie with in that interview on 60 Mins.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Many of them know better. They just want voters to equate socialism with gulags and government oppression when It more accurately equates to affordable education, healthcare, higher working class wages and Democracy.

"Affordable", huh? Like the fact that it doesn't get cheaper. It gets more expensive, yet seems more affordable to you because the government is taking from other people and forcing them to pay for your stuff?

Odd that you'd publicly admit to supporting slavery.

And higher working wages? Liberals piss and moan with the expectation that Capitalism is capable producing a $15/hr minimum wage, so we should be paying it. Yet the average monthly wage in Cuba is ~ $25/mo, and they also tell us we should become socialist because it will pay "higher working class wages".

 

[NCFisher]

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.

The 1776 'Wealth of Nations' doesn't directly or conceptually mention socialism, Marx was born 42 years later. The book is the thesis of laissez-faire market liberalism (having no, or indiscernible government intervention) and its defense. The short version of "intervention" being regulation of domestic/foreign commerce, central banking, and fiat creation and manipulation of currency, not a mix of public private ownership of production. 'Mixed economy' was coined in the early 20th century, characterizing this tension, the term lacking a single definition.

As 'democratic socialism' is used by the left to make socialism palatable, so has 'mixed economy' been appropriated to solely imply a nice Ben & Jerry's where we can sample socialism with delightful impunity; both are socialist sales-pitches. We're mixed in the classical sense of very substantial intervention in the economy, not socialist government or public ownership of production.

The American left should say either "I"m a socialist and choose to ignore its history" or "I'm a market advocate AND want high taxation and social spending". That's the bottom line choice, and basis for an honest discussion.

 

[BowlBrother85]

The 1776 'Wealth of Nations' doesn't directly or conceptually mention socialism, Marx was born 42 years later. The book is the thesis of laissez-faire market liberalism (having no, or indiscernible government intervention) and its defense. The short version of "intervention" being regulation of domestic/foreign commerce, central banking, and fiat creation and manipulation of currency, not a mix of public private ownership of production. 'Mixed economy' was coined in the early 20th century, characterizing this tension, the term lacking a single definition.

As 'democratic socialism' is used by the left to make socialism palatable, so has 'mixed economy' been appropriated to solely imply a nice Ben & Jerry's where we can sample socialism with delightful impunity; both are socialist sales-pitches. We're mixed in the classical sense of very substantial intervention in the economy, not socialist government or public ownership of production.

The American left should say either "I"m a socialist and choose to ignore its history" or "I'm a market advocate AND want high taxation and social spending". That's the bottom line choice, and basis for an honest discussion.

Which is exactly what I said... and subsidies are a socialist policy and yes there have been elements of government ownership of production in the United States. The Troubled Asset Relief Program of 2008 was absolutely a socialist agenda... and remind me again, which party George W. Bush was from?

 

[NCFisher]

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).

I don't think so for this reason; socialism requires the destruction of the market system - not a co-existence - in order to lay the political and social goals on the ashes.
Equating subsidy with socialism:
-- is the intent of government to destroy or nationalize the industry by subsidy? Or is government intervening in the economy, thinking it necessary to prevent injury to the industry, in effect protecting it?
-- we wouldn't say zebras and tigers are the same animal, or approximate, because they both have stripes. Market and socialist economies share some sentiments and goals, but entirely different mechanisms to accomplish it, and different philosophy regarding liberty and outcome.

I think your last sentence is apt. There's a sound argument that we're in a quasi-fascist corporatist phase, where government exerts influence over corporations with tax and regulatory favoritism to enact social policy. The judiciary has also shown a willingness to aid legislators. IMO, corporatism is slow-walking toward socialism.

I'd heard a Latino woman interviewed in which she remarked that Central and South Americans understand socialism having lived it, but that Mexicans do not and somewhat explains why 1/3rd of Hispanics/Latinos vote Republican, and 2/3rds vote Democrat. It may well take another Mao and Stalin episode to remind people.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I don't think so for this reason; socialism requires the destruction of the market system - not a co-existence - in order to lay the political and social goals on the ashes.
Equating subsidy with socialism:
-- is the intent of government to destroy or nationalize the industry by subsidy? Or is government intervening in the economy, thinking it necessary to prevent injury to the industry, in effect protecting it?
-- we wouldn't say zebras and tigers are the same animal, or approximate, because they both have stripes. Market and socialist economies share some sentiments and goals, but entirely different mechanisms to accomplish it, and different philosophy regarding liberty and outcome.

I think your last sentence is apt. There's a sound argument that we're in a quasi-fascist corporatist phase, where government exerts influence over corporations with tax and regulatory favoritism to enact social policy. The judiciary has also shown a willingness to aid legislators. IMO, corporatism is slow-walking toward socialism.

I'd heard a Latino woman interviewed in which she remarked that Central and South Americans understand socialism having lived it, but that Mexicans do not and somewhat explains why 1/3rd of Hispanics/Latinos vote Republican, and 2/3rds vote Democrat. It may well take another Mao and Stalin episode to remind people.

That is not true.

 

[NCFisher]

Which is exactly what I said... and subsidies are a socialist policy and yes there have been elements of government ownership of production in the United States. The Troubled Asset Relief Program of 2008 was absolutely a socialist agenda... and remind me again, which party George W. Bush was from?

Too many posters here think of socialism and communism as being interchangeable terms. I have posted the distinct differences in various threads many times. Too many posters also seem to be under the delusion that the United States isn't already close to being an even mixture of capitalism and socialism. Too many posters also don't seem to realize the numerous ways that Trump has implemented socialist policies... such as the bailout of the farming industry as an offset to the impact that his tariffs had on free trade. Some of you guys are just plain slow.

The second paragraph is the original post I replied to, stating there is no even mixture of capitalism and socialism and that they cannot co-exist. Even Adam Smith, advocating caring for the poor and ensuring an educated populace. Could we by any stretch of the imagination consider him or his policies socialist? Zebras and tigers share stripes and four legs, but we don't confuse one for the other.

How is protecting the *market* economy and *market* corporations with bailout - so they can do it again at a future date - a *socialist* agenda? A socialist agenda would be nationalizing those banks, mortgage companies, airlines, auto manufacturers, etc., wouldn't it?

 

[BowlBrother85]

The second paragraph is the original post I replied to, stating there is no even mixture of capitalism and socialism and that they cannot co-exist. Even Adam Smith, advocating caring for the poor and ensuring an educated populace. Could we by any stretch of the imagination consider him or his policies socialist? Zebras and tigers share stripes and four legs, but we don't confuse one for the other.

How is protecting the *market* economy and *market* corporations with bailout - so they can do it again at a future date - a *socialist* agenda? A socialist agenda would be nationalizing those banks, mortgage companies, airlines, auto manufacturers, etc., wouldn't it?

A socialist agenda is giving $426 billion of tax payer money to banks and other entities, in order to bail them out of a crisis which the banks were largely responsible for. Now, in 2014, the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining holdings of Ally Financial, essentially ending the program and the Troubled Asset Relief Program did recover funds totaling $441.7 billion from the $426.4 billion invested... but from 2008-2014, this was an example of socialism. What else would you call it?

 

[NCFisher]

That is not true.

Sure it is; even "democratic" socialists know this:

We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions to make private business more accountable. What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

They then go on to exclaim why they're not like the bad 20th century socialists, even as they outline how they'll have to be just like them.

We are still talking about Karl and not Groucho, right?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Sure it is; even "democratic" socialists know this:

We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions to make private business more accountable. What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

They then go on to exclaim why they're not like the bad 20th century socialists, even as they outline how they'll have to be just like them.

We are still talking about Karl and not Groucho, right?

Game. Set. Match.

BB seems to be describing the use of socialized capitalism (as a means toward establishing socialism) as if it is socialism.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Game. Set. Match.

BB seems to be describing the use of socialized capitalism (as a means toward establishing socialism) as if it is socialism.

BB isn't discussing socialism in its purest form... but the United States as a mixed economy.

 

[NCFisher]

A socialist agenda is giving $426 billion of tax payer money to banks and other entities, in order to bail them out of a crisis which the banks were largely responsible for. Now, in 2014, the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining holdings of Ally Financial, essentially ending the program and the Troubled Asset Relief Program did recover funds totaling $441.7 billion from the $426.4 billion invested... but from 2008-2014, this was an example of socialism. What else would you call it?

You're stating numbers but not explaining how the bailouts were socialism.

What is socialist about propping up all these capitalists? Wouldn't socialist policy nationalize that crap?

 

[Wireless1]

That is not true.

Maybe not on day one but yes it does. Government is a consumer, it never produces more than it consumes, and never generates lasting wealth.

 

[BowlBrother85]

You're stating numbers but not explaining how the bailouts were socialism.

What is socialist about propping up all these capitalists? Wouldn't socialist policy nationalize that crap?

"propping up"? More like purchasing them... and for at least a brief period, taking control of the decisions which were made in how to use those funds. That is what the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) did.

 

[Orange_Crush]

BB isn't discussing socialism in its purest form... but the United States as a mixed economy.

Then why are you arguing that his statements about socialism are untrue? And for that matter, why do "socialists" point at market-based countries like the Nords, and claim that "socialism" works?

Seems that vocabulary should mean something.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Then why are you arguing that his statements about socialism are untrue?

Because some of the things he has said are untrue... he has argued that the United States was not a mixed economy.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You're stating numbers but not explaining how the bailouts were socialism.

What is socialist about propping up all these capitalists? Wouldn't socialist policy nationalize that crap?

That is fascist crony capitalism. Not socialism.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Because some of the things he has said are untrue... he has argued that the United States was not a mixed economy.

This is what you bolded and called untrue.

I don't think so for this reason; socialism requires the destruction of the market system - not a co-existence - in order to lay the political and social goals on the ashes.

Now you're claiming that you're not even talking about socialism.

 

[BowlBrother85]

This is what you bolded and called untrue.



Now you're claiming that you're not even talking about socialism.

Yeah... I may not have been paying attention to what I was quoting... I do this while in between e-mailing underwriters.

 

[NCFisher]

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.

?? Clinton won the <$50K voter, and about twice as many of the <$30K vote than Trump. Trump won all voter income brackets >$50K. Republican voters earn higher incomes generally. CA has the highest rate of poverty in the U.S., DC the 2nd, and NY and HI make appearances in the 10 most poverty ridden.

Democrats used to break political bread with the "working man". Now they just break his balls (see Election 2016 and Rust Belt). It appears Jethro and Lulu work for a living and are more successful than Hunter and Megan.

Perhaps they should have attended community college instead of racking up $75K in tuition for a degree in social work or gender studies, only to job search in San Fran or NYC while being an activist for 'free' college education.

On the bright side, they have readily available street latrines!