Anybody want to deny the Democrat party isn't socialist now?

[Daemon Sophic]

Socialists and Marxists can go to hell.

Apparently no one cares where these systems always leads to.

Utter ruin.

Uh Oh! We had better warn the free people of are Norway, Bolivia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand, that their nations are all headed directly to “utter ruin”!


Actually. Uh, can we get some of that “utter ruin” too.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I wouldn't worry that this is any kind of sea change.
Most lefties (& righties) don't even know what "socialism" is.
They often use the term to describe any social or infrastructure
program they like, eg, roads, welfare, education.
But watch out for some like AOC, who really does want to
ditch capitalism for a centralized command economy.

Can you please back that claim with a quote from her?

 

[Revoltingest]

You do know that Marx actually advocated for artistic freedom and sought to increase freedoms by reducing necessary labour hours, right?
Just a little fun fact

That illustrates a fundamental problem with socialism,
ie, that it's a system defined in terms of the dream it
fulfills, but the system structure has the emergent
property of authoritarianism, both social & economic.
This results from the inherent level of control required,
which tempts leaders...entices them to micro-manage
all that they see.

 

[SomeRandom]

That illustrates a fundamental problem with socialism,
ie, that it's a system defined in terms of the dream it
fulfills, but the system structure has the emergent
property of authoritarianism, both social & economic.
This results from the inherent level of control required,
which tempts leaders...entices them to micro-manage
all that they see.

I agree with that.
Granted I don’t think I’m versed enough in political theory to properly understand much less parse the nuances of the various schools of thought under socialism, or capitalism or whatever ism.
Just an observation, but there is a strange knee jerk reaction I find with Americans specifically speaking out against socialism or communism. In that its just treated as a bogeyman. Not something that can be discussed/debated in good faith. Just something that’s evil and will take rights away.
But capitalism isn’t exactly known to guarantee freedom either.
I’m sure you can find just as many complaints about stripping freedoms under capitalist regimes.
Not saying one is better than the other.
But the US with its hyper capitalism isn’t exactly well thought of on the world stage in many areas. Indeed it’s seen as quite barbaric in some areas.
At least from what I can gather.
Take that as you will

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you please back that claim with a quote from her?

Again?
(I've linked to it so many times.)
OK.
AOC: Capitalism is ‘not a redeemable system for us’
Excerpted....
"They can control our labor. They can control massive markets that they dictate and can capture governments. And they can essentially have power over the many. And to me that is not a redeemable system for us to be able to participate in for the prosperity and peace for the vast majority of people."

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree with that.
Granted I don’t think I’m versed enough in political theory to properly understand much less parse the nuances of the various schools of thought under socialism, or capitalism or whatever ism.

I'm not versed in political theory at all. (But I did once
design control systems.) But we can all observe how
various economic systems are expressed in the real
world. Socialism (defined as the people owning the
means of production) has without exception been
authoritarian & economically weak. Capitalism has
some successes in social & economic areas.

Just an observation, but there is a strange knee jerk reaction I find with Americans specifically speaking out against socialism or communism. In that its just treated as a bogeyman. Not something that can be discussed/debated in good faith. Just something that’s evil and will take rights away.

In Ameristan, "socialism" is often just a label to afix to
whatever is liked (left) or hated (right). Few people
use dictionaries for terms in political discourse, eh.

But capitalism isn’t exactly known to guarantee freedom either.
I’m sure you can find just as many complaints about stripping freedoms under capitalist regimes.

Aye, capitalism is no guarantee of liberty & prosperity.
But it does afford the opportunity for those to arise.
Socialism guarantees (empirically) failure.

Not saying one is better than the other.
But the US with its hyper capitalism isn’t exactly well thought of on the world stage in many areas. Indeed it’s seen as quite barbaric in some areas.
At least from what I can gather.
Take that as you will

Our capitalism isn't all that hyper. In the index
tracked by The Heritage Foundation, Ameristan
has been falling in economic liberty relative to
other countries. We were once in the top 10.
Alas, that is no more.
Even Canuckistan is more capitalistic than we
.Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm not versed in political theory at all. (But I did once
design control systems.) But we can all observe how
various economic systems are expressed in the real
world. Socialism (defined as the people owning the
means of production) has without exception been
authoritarian & economically weak. Capitalism has
some successes in social & economic areas.

Agreed. Though with a vested interest that Capitalist societies clearly have, capitalist societies can and likely do try to undermine them every chance they get. So ultimately I don’t know if that’s just the philosophy’s fault or just various billionaires intentionally screwing with systems to prove a point.
Granted I will agree that so called “Tankies” seem to turn out to be fascist authoritarians. Lol
So ehh.
Perhaps you’re right.

In Ameristan, "socialism" is often just a label to afix to
whatever is liked (left) or hated (right). Few people
use dictionaries for terms in political discourse, eh.

Yes. I’ll admit to commenting on things I don’t fully understand all the time. But like, I think if you wish to decry something then the least one could do is a quick Google search on it. The world’s information is at our fingertips 24/7 these days. Might as well utilise it. Right?

Aye, capitalism is no guarantee of liberty & prosperity.
But it does afford the opportunity for those to arise.
Socialism guarantees (empirically) failure.

Maybe. Like I said, international politics is more scummy than even regular politics. Countries interfere with each other all the time. I mean didn’t Russia supposedly interfere in information distribution in the US back in 2016 or whatever? Which apparently affected the election to some extent.
Not to mention how often the US directly interferes (sometimes detrimentally) in pretty much every other country!
All for their benefit at the end of the day.
One could argue anyway.

Our capitalism isn't all that hyper. In the index
tracked by The Heritage Foundation, Ameristan
has been falling in economic liberty relative to
other countries. We were once in the top 10.
Alas, that is no more.
Even Canuckistan is more capitalistic than we
.Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country

Interesting.
See?
Like I said, not versed enough in political theory lol

 

[wellwisher]

Socialism is a tool used by the Democrats to trick young people into voting Democrat. If you look at Socialism, it is essentially a continuation of childhood and living with the parents. Both parents and the power structure of Socialism provide for you and make decisions for you. A child does not have to worry about food, clothing, education, internet, cable TV and doctors. The parents worry and provide for you. You get to play and not have be an adult with all the responsibilities of adults. The high student debt helped the Socialism scam, since being a young adult just got harder, making it easier to promise perpetual childhood; Big Mama will take care for you.

Capitalism is more like adulthood, where you need to work to get ahead. Your parents are no longer supporting you and you need to learn to provide for yourself and potentially the next generation. It does not expect a handout, but one is expected to adult up and walk like men and women. Capitalism has the potential for upward mobility.

The biggest problem with Socialism, in practice, is there is no middle class mobility. There are elites and peasants. Most people who teach Socialism never see themselves as the peasants. They assume they will be part of the power structure, which has it very easy compared to the peasants. The majority will be peasants, who are lorded over by those in power. Power does not always imply competence. This Socialist family structure often has the parents; leaders, turning their children; peasants, into forced labor; high taxes, instead of the free spirited child image that lures the young into socialism.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I'm not versed in political theory at all. (But I did once
design control systems.) But we can all observe how
various economic systems are expressed in the real
world. Socialism (defined as the people owning the
means of production) has without exception been
authoritarian & economically weak. Capitalism has
some successes in social & economic areas.

In Ameristan, "socialism" is often just a label to afix to
whatever is liked (left) or hated (right). Few people
use dictionaries for terms in political discourse, eh.

Aye, capitalism is no guarantee of liberty & prosperity.
But it does afford the opportunity for those to arise.
Socialism guarantees (empirically) failure.

Our capitalism isn't all that hyper. In the index
tracked by The Heritage Foundation, Ameristan
has been falling in economic liberty relative to
other countries. We were once in the top 10.
Alas, that is no more.
Even Canuckistan is more capitalistic than we
.Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country

It seems that you did not read the article that you linked for me. And thank you by the way.
In conext, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said,
“I believe that in a broad sense because when we toss out these big words, capitalism, socialism, they get sensationalized. And people translate them into meaning things that perhaps they don't mean. So to me, capitalism at its core, what we're talking about when we talk about that, is the absolute pursuit of profit at all human, environmental, and social cost. That is what we're really discussing.

And what we're also discussing is the ability for a very small group of actual capitalists-- and that is people who have so much money that their money makes money, and they don't have to work. And they can control industry. They can control our energy sources.

They can control our labor. They can control massive markets that they dictate and can capture governments. And they can essentially have power over the many. And to me that is not a redeemable system for us to be able to participate in for the prosperity and peace for the vast majority of people.”

Basically, you agree with her that people are flinging around terms that they really haven’t bothered to define. Furthermore, her actual discussion addresses your error here.
“Aye, capitalism is no guarantee of liberty & prosperity.
But it does afford the opportunity for those to arise.
Socialism guarantees (empirically) failure.”

This statement of yours, flies directly in the face of your preceding comment. A comment exactly in line with what Ms. Ocasio-Cortez-Cortez was saying.
“In Ameristan, "socialism" is often just a label to afix to
whatever is liked (left) or hated (right). Few people
use dictionaries for terms in political discourse, eh.”

You then go on to discuss the success of Canada in it’s ‘Capitalist’ efforts. Yet Canada is in the list of countries I cited in my prior post as one of the successful nations on Earth that is labelled by most as ‘Socialistic’.

In fact, the ideal for libertarians (and everybody else) for capitalism, is that enough socialism programs exist in the system such that economic mobility is actually possible. You know, where hard work and a brain can send you from rags to riches.
We must have a blend (of capitalism and socialism) if the “American Dream” is to survive, or even to have a chance of breathing.

My suggestion? Read less headlines. Read more content.

PS - US capitalism is in fact far too hyper. And the Heritage Foundation is a right wing piece of crap rag.

 

[Debater Slayer]

But watch out for some like AOC, who really does want to
ditch capitalism for a centralized command economy.

From what I've seen, she merely wants increased economic regulation and less unbridled capitalism in the US. I fully agree with her on that.

I like socialism when it's not overly statist. A combination of socialism and capitalism seems best to me--the US has too much of the latter and not enough of the former at the moment.

 

[Stevicus]

Kristian Gonzalez (Democrat) after winning NY primary had this to say.....

This is straight from her own mouth, and not from a right wing mouthpiece accusation that The Democrat party has transformed into a far left socialist leaning entity.

It's a solid confirmation now that its indeed the case.

Democrats are socialist.

Some Democrats might have socialist leanings, and there might very well be some full-blown socialists among their ranks. However, it's clear that they're not the majority of Democrats, and the general direction of the Democratic Party the past 30-40 years would indicate that they're very much in the capitalist camp.

I have no idea about this particular politician from New York, but if she is a socialist and believes that socialism is on the upswing, then maybe that's the direction the Democrats may take. In light of the Republicans' apparent shift towards the far-right, the Democrats may be better off by making an equal and opposite shift towards the far-left.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed. Though with a vested interest that Capitalist societies clearly have, capitalist societies can and likely do try to undermine them every chance they get. So ultimately I don’t know if that’s just the philosophy’s fault or just various billionaires intentionally screwing with systems to prove a point.
Granted I will agree that so called “Tankies” seem to turn out to be fascist authoritarians. Lol

Socialists often blame capitalists for underminng
their "workers paradise". This is a lame excuse
for their own failure...a boogeyman interferes.
Piffle.
The problem is human tendencies, ie, give any
group (large or small) control approaching total,
& authoritarianism is the emergent property.
Moreover, the diminished power of individual
initiative creates pervasive sluggishness.
Of course, it also enables leaders to focus upon
whatever goals interest them, eg, conquest.

Perhaps you’re right.

I never make mistkaes.

Yes. I’ll admit to commenting on things I don’t fully understand all the time.

Welcome to the club.

But like, I think if you wish to decry something then the least one could do is a quick Google search on it. The world’s information is at our fingertips 24/7 these days. Might as well utilise it. Right?

Maybe. Like I said, international politics is more scummy than even regular politics. Countries interfere with each other all the time. I mean didn’t Russia supposedly interfere in information distribution in the US back in 2016 or whatever? Which apparently affected the election to some extent.
Not to mention how often the US directly interferes (sometimes detrimentally) in pretty much every other country!
All for their benefit at the end of the day.
One could argue anyway.



Interesting.
See?
Like I said, not versed enough in political theory lol

You're comfortable discussing things.
This is refreshing.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems that you did not read the article that you linked for me. And thank you by the way.

I did. And there's more to it than you seem to grok.
There are issues of her sincerity, ie, does she dis capitalism
out of belief & agenda....or is she manipulating her base.
Both portend less economic liberty if she rises to power.

And the Heritage Foundation is a right wing piece of crap rag.

So you ignore the index & its bases
because of partisan animosity, eh.
Try harder to understand than gainsay.

 

[Revoltingest]

From what I've seen, she merely wants increased economic regulation and less unbridled capitalism in the US. I fully agree with her on that.

Capitalism here is quite bridled.
To call it "unbridled" bespeaks unfamiliarity with the
real world of business, & reliance upon stereotype.
Regulation here has increased greatly since I started
running businesses.
You could check the growth of the CFR (Code of
Federal Regulations) & IRS regulations. Both have
ballooned over many decades...even during
supposedly anti-reg types like Reagan.

I like socialism when it's not overly statist. A combination of socialism and capitalism seems best to me--the US has too much of the latter and not enough of the former at the moment.

We might agree more than you think. The Scandinavian
model has capitalism & a market economy fueling a useful
social support system. This is not socialism. But it would
achieve your goals (as I understand them) better than
would socialism.

 

[PureX]

It's really sad and scary the amount of blatant ignorance and stupidity being displayed in some of these posts. Few Americans have any idea what socialism or capitalism is. So are just parroting whatever the lying talking heads they listen to in the media say. And they believe it like blind lemmings. No doubts, no question, no nothing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sure. Find me a single Republican who openly says they are fascist like Democrat's who openly say their socialists. I'll patiently wait.

Kind of a weird leap. That has literally nothing to do with my point, and I didn't mention 'fascism' at all. Still, it surprised me that you appear more concerned by what people self-describe as than how they act.

I just showed yet another Democrat who openely says they are socialist.

Who cares? They appear to be talking about social welfare programs, not overthrowing capitalism entirely. And improvements in those areas are needed.

Democrats are now officially a socialist/Marxist political party.

'Officially'?
What the heck are you even talking about??
Anyway...simple examples of what I meant about the 1 not speaking for the many...

1. Paul Gosar spoke at AFPAC, as a simple example of a Republican flirting with extreme ideology (and was called out by Mitt Romney for it)

2. Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all Christians.

3. There are plenty of atheists floating around espousing views contradictory to mine. They don't speak for me.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Kristian Gonzalez (Democrat) after winning NY primary had this to say.....

This is straight from her own mouth, and not from a right wing mouthpiece accusation that The Democrat party has transformed into a far left socialist leaning entity.

It's a solid confirmation now that its indeed the case.

Democrats are socialist.

Both parties have centrist and far contingents. Should we say that Republican are fascist? Don't generalize. But to be honest, we have been lagging behind the other developed nations for a long time and we need to catch up.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Socialists and Marxists can go to hell.

Apparently no one cares where these systems always leads to.

Utter ruin.

There are no purely socialist or capitalist countries. Most developed nations are a mix of both. That seems to work well.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Greece

Venezuela

That kind of big deal.

Democratic Socialism is way different than, say, Venezuela.

 

[Stevicus]

Capitalism here is quite bridled.
To call it "unbridled" bespeaks unfamiliarity with the
real world of business, & reliance upon stereotype.
Regulation here has increased greatly since I started
running businesses.
You could check the growth of the CFR (Code of
Federal Regulations) & IRS regulations. Both have
ballooned over many decades...even during
supposedly anti-reg types like Reagan.

If this is true, then why do wealthy capitalists support and donate to these politicians' campaigns? All these conservatives who have crowed about deregulation, free market, capitalism, and yet, you're saying they've put more restraints and regulations on business?