Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's because they are.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
AOC now actively hawking her own political merchandise.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Or not. They tend to not be much for doing away with Capitalism. And lots of communists and socialists also don't like them for being lukewarm.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Now that she has a taste of wealth and power...
Just watch if someone ever trys to procure her money in order to redistribute that wealth to others.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
She isn't wealthy yet though.
@Twilight Hue
Can you tell me what you think socialism is, out of curiosity? Not to get too serious in the jokes section.
I guess tell me what you think it is with a funny emoji at the end
Can you tell me what you think socialism is, out of curiosity? Not to get too serious in the jokes section.
I guess tell me what you think it is with a funny emoji at the end
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
She's on the fast track. It's pretty much guaranteed.
The base
pay is $174,000 a year.
That does not include book deals, speaking engagements, bonuses/perks and the like.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
We can redistribute the wealth of the student loan debt she owes.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Sure.
Robbing Peter to support Paul on a regular basis if not for life, and they are not even married for crying out loud!
My emoji button is broke. So.....
Old school!!
=OD
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"Socialism" is the current version of McCarthyism and his "Red Scare". All societies today are a mix of capitalistic and socialistic programs, with a couple of examples of the latter being Social Security and Medicare as seen here in the States. But I betcha all the "sky is falling" capitalists here at RF will still collect on both if they live long enough.
I’m partial to old school emojis ^.^
I wonder though, are you against socialized fire departments? Socialized police, infrastructure that allows you to live in civilization? I don’t know where you live, but I’m not aware of any totally privatized countries. What’s your take on that?
If that's the intent, then "democratic socialism" is
indeed akin to "socialist"...perhaps even "commie".
But do you think this is what AOC intends?
This might be what @Shadow Wolf was just saying
in #57, ie, that it's a stepping stone to communism.
The goal of raising the temperature of the frog's pot
of water, eh....at least for some democratic socialists.
Democratic socialists do often have a taste for wealth.
They deserve it because they're good.
Cops & fire departments are not the "means of production".
Roads...sort of are.
On RF, "capitalism" is so often the dangerous
boogeyman that's destroying society. They decry
it, but they offer no better real world alternative.
Socialism is not (necessarily) in opposition to capitalism though; so I don’t think we’re concerned about ownership of the means of production here.
Or are you saying roads should be privatized?
The point I was making was merely that we are usually comfortable with socialization. It gets artificially demonized by various propagandists for having the scary “s” word.
And to be fair, AOC did this too in her response to Sean Spicer when she said that capitalism is concerned with profit over humans and environment. It doesn’t have to be, and she could have clarified that (should have?)
By the dictionary definition, socialism does indeed oppose
capitalism, ie, private ownership of the means of production.
I've not addressed who should own roads.
But what we have now is fine by me...a mix of turnpikes, free
roads, & private roads. New tech could enable efficient changes,
but this is beyond the scope of the thread...& my brainpower.
I see both the left & the right demonizing policies using
scare words, eg, "socialism", "corporations", "capitalists".
If indeed "democratic socialists" advocate a bountious
social welfare system fueled by taxation under capitalism,
then fine by me. ut that term sends shivers down the
spines of those who see the 2nd word. And as Shadow
Wolf said, to some on the left, it really does mean the
road to communism.
So the left (& all of us) would benefit from a better term.
I say "welfare capitalism" or "social capitalism".
The last looks most palatable to the feuding sides.
Too many people see economic systems as either what they
fear or what they dream.....seldom seeing they actually are.
"Capitalism exploits people!!!"
"Communism is godless!!!"
How do we evaluate them? We can't just look at the definitions.
After all, even the definition of "socialism" doesn't include human
rights or liberty. Neither does "capitalism".
So I take the empirical approach, ie, observe the emergent
properties in historical & current examples of various economic
systems under various governmental systems. What actually
happens in the real world of imperfect humans running things?
Theory must comport with observable reality, or it's bunk.
Canuckistan is a good example of "social capitalism" in a
representative democracy (IMO). Government provides the
regulatory & legal environment under which capitalism thrives.
Is there a good example of socialism (ie, a command economy
with no capitalism) under any form of government?