Democratic Socialists: Do you agree with this statement?

Checkerboard Strangler said:

You were a failed liberal, there are many of you out there and now you've decided there needs to be a war on ALL liberals because obviously you learned everything there is to know about liberalism.
You think being a liberal is all about yelling and revolution and then telling others what to do.

Some of the biggest failed liberals went on to a perverted form of greatness as the big neocon leaders of today.
For them, the war has taken on monster proportions and they have enlisted the most corrupt echelons of our corporate structure to levy permanent war on liberalism in any and all forms, and "Their Brand Is Crisis", because without a permanent state of crisis, some of the more rational aspects of liberalism just might succeed, and they might be out of a job.

What are they paying you for your war?
I know this much, some of us are paying to clean up your mess.

Click to expand...

Hah! Another great post. I love your sense of seeing the bigger picture, including historical context.

Speaking to your post above, I'll never forget the day I heard Jerry Ruben had become a Wall Street investment banker. I was like, "What"? And it was only a few years after his early '70's activism.

The only other time I felt so sold-out by the movement, was hearing of Abbie Hoffman's suicide in the late eighties. I was flummoxed in trying to understand how someone so otherwise brave and tough as Abbie, could take the easy way out. I later found he had earlier been diagnosed as bipolar. The heavy drug use of the 60's has sadly too often reared its head in the form of subsequent mental illness, far beyond that of the early acid casualties like Syd Barrett or Peter Green.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

You were a failed liberal, there are many of you out there and now you've decided there needs to be a war on ALL liberals because obviously you learned everything there is to know about liberalism.
You think being a liberal is all about yelling and revolution and then telling others what to do.

Click to expand...

WRONG.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Some of the biggest failed liberals went on to a perverted form of greatness as the big neocon leaders of today.
For them, the war has taken on monster proportions and they have enlisted the most corrupt echelons of our corporate structure to levy permanent war on liberalism in any and all forms, and "Their Brand Is Crisis", because without a permanent state of crisis, some of the more rational aspects of liberalism just might succeed, and they might be out of a job.

What are they paying you for your war?
I know this much, some of us are paying to clean up your mess.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? It's like you got stuck in 1968.

trixare4kids said:

While AOC campainged in NY, she said,
“We need to kick luxury real estate lobbyists to the curb and defend working people’s way of life. Skyrocketing cost of living is a national crisis that CAN be addressed. It’s not just an NYC issue – it’s happening in every U.S. metro area.”

Now while in DC., she has taken up residence in a luxury apartment complex complete with infinity swimming pool, that does not offer the affordable housing units that were key tenets of her campaign.
How does she not choke on her own hyprocrisy? :roll:

Click to expand...

Because she, like most of here cohort, are convinced they're the natural-born leader class; they deserve top-shelf treatment and perks because they've been endowed with special gifts and vision to help the rest of us lead the "perfect life".

Chomsky said:

Hey, another great post.

But to answer your bolded question, in technical terms the difference is simply about who controls the means of production:

Democratic Socialism puts the means of production into public control, is fully rooted in socialism, stems from Marxism, and is a transitional phase to communism. Capitalism & capitalists are overthrown.

Social Democracy keeps the means of production in private hands, is an independent train-of-thought not rooted in either socialism or Marxism, and maintains and supports capitalism & capitalists - keeping the capitalism framework intact.

FWIW, I identify most as a Social Democrat in my relation to the public sphere.

Click to expand...

Well done, and that is the reason I used the peach pie analogy, because social democracy tastes good, whereas a nectarine pie, while it might fill your belly, probably doesn't make you want to dream of Grandma and write home.

We are capitalists. We've always been capitalists. We've been capitalists for maybe three centuries or even more on this land.
We have no more inclination to try out socialism than John Deere has the inclination to make high speed bullet trains, and we don't have any historical frame of reference for it.

We need to FIX our capitalism so that it "tastes good again" like a peach pie, instead of a large vat of Soylent Green with a secret package of Swiss chocolate hidden in the bottom for the first oligarch to eat the entire vat by themselves.

And that's also why I think a few Americans are confused about whether or not they are "democratic socialists". Mostly, they're not, and if they are, they're on a fool's errand, because even the poorest Americans want to think that they can earn their own money and own their own stuff and make their own way somehow.

John Steinbeck said it best with a great deal of snark once upon a time:

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an oppressed proletariat but instead as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."


I would guess he had been drinking :lol:

Anyway, you cannot separate Americans from the American Dream. And why would anyone want to?
All we need for Uncle Sam to do is give every man a square deal.
Back when Frank Roosevelt did that, a lot of the other problems began to take care of themselves.

Chomsky said:

Yes, agreed, depending upon where a particular form of governance falls on the axis. I was simply describing the simple text-book differentiation, that being "who controls the means of production". If the means of production is private, it's not socialism.

Which is kind of unfortunate for Bernie Sanders, in choosing to call himself a "socialist"; because he's not.

Click to expand...

I think it's a conscious decision on his behalf to get in front of, and disempower the typical and inevitable 'socialist' pejorative, and thus far he's been tremendously successful at that as the word has lost much of its sting.

It's unfortunate that Republicans have clung so religiously to disingenuous and dishonest McCarthyist tactics and smears (people unironically branding Obama as a 'socialist'; are you kidding me?) that he felt something like this was necessary.

uptower said:

Not as absurd as one might think. As much as it might annoy us that some bum is getting our tax money, it releases some of the pressure, reduces some of the crime that would otherwise stem from the disadvantaged, desperate or just plain lazy. It's the latter group this has a particular application to.

Some people will turn to crime because it is glamorous, others as an alternative to actually working. These can't be helped much other than through policing and rehabilitation, if at all. But some feel they have no other choice and do it just to put food on the table. These people may or may not be too lazy to work, but if you pay them just enough, they're too lazy to rob or steal as well. Much like other socialised services that keep us safe - the fire dept, police, the military - welfare can actually protect regular citizens by discouraging those who'd do us harm.

Click to expand...

I hope you don't interpret my anecdote as me somehow taking it personally.
("As much as it might annoy us that some bum is getting our tax money")

It's not personal, it's just that it doesn't work, and it didn't work when Johnson tried it. (See: The Great Society - the part that failed)
And while I didn't take it personally, a great many Republicans did, and they're still dining out on it after forty years.
No thanks. Bums are bums, and we pay our police well to take care of bums. We can take the money the DEA uses from busting POT HEADS and the cops can use it to control bums instead. The bums won't like it and some of them will mend their ways. The rest who decide to commit crime would be committing crime in ANY society anyway.
And if they ARE bums because they have drug problems, that is a HEALTH problem, and society can help them with their health problem, through treatment programs.

The point is, it's trying to fix something that can't be fixed by paying someone.

Bullseye said:

WRONG.

Click to expand...

Hey, you said it. I just turned it around on you, that's all.

Bullseye said:

What are you talking about? It's like you got stuck in 1968.

Click to expand...

Smart, so you know I'm not talking out of my ass.

You act as if I've never paid any attention to what you write.
I pay VERY close attention to you, Bullseye.
You on the other hand, don't pay attention to hardly anything I've ever said.

For example: Do you think I am in favor of government owning the means of production?
Do you think I believe that we should support an eventual move to full socialism and even communism?
Do you think that I believe all wealthy people are evil, or that they should feel guilty about their wealth?
Do you think that I am convinced that America is a largely evil nation?
Do you think that I hate the military?
Do you think that I would support Alexandria Ocasio Cortez for President?

You don't have the foggiest notion what I think and it's because all liberals are a one-dimensional cardboard cutout to you, and you derive amusement from taking pot shots at us and putting us in one box.

Yeah yeah, I know...you'll come back with "You're full of **** and I don't give a **** what you think" etc etc blah blah blah quack quack quack.
You're a failed liberal, you had no earthly idea what it was about back then and you just joined because you were a camp follower and it was cool, and you might get laid, and that's all.

And when it suddenly wasn't cool anymore, you think you took the natural progression and "grew up and became conservative" because you believe adults are supposed to do that.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I hope you don't interpret my anecdote as me somehow taking it personally.
("As much as it might annoy us that some bum is getting our tax money")

It's not personal, it's just that it doesn't work, and it didn't work when Johnson tried it. (See: The Great Society - the part that failed)
And while I didn't take it personally, a great many Republicans did, and they're still dining out on it after forty years.
No thanks. Bums are bums, and we pay our police well to take care of bums. We can take the money the DEA uses from busting POT HEADS and the cops can use it to control bums instead. The bums won't like it and some of them will mend their ways. The rest who decide to commit crime would be committing crime in ANY society anyway.
And if they ARE bums because they have drug problems, that is a HEALTH problem, and society can help them with their health problem, through treatment programs.

The point is, it's trying to fix something that can't be fixed by paying someone.

Click to expand...

Well it mildly annoys me that my tax dollars might go to someone who doesn't deserve it, so that's where the sentiment comes from. But morality aside the practicality of it appeals to me. I'd rather have that layabout sitting at home smoking weed and playing with his Xbox than wake up to find him standing over me in the middle of the night with a weapon and a roll of packing tape. It also costs a lot to keep people in prison these days. In the end, in the case if this hypothetical slacker, welfare is cheaper both in personal costs (the electrical tape scenario) and public spending.

Harshaw said:

“This Campaign Is Literally Making Socialists”



Do you agree? Is that a fair description of "democratic socialism"?

Why or why not?

Further in, he confirms that he means it like it sounds:

Click to expand...

The word "naive" comes to my mind. These people live in a fantasyland. It's kind of like saying that there should be peace in the world. Well, no duh. But, is that reality? No. It's fantasy. Ditto most everything he said.

Chomsky said:

Hah! Another great post. I love your sense of seeing the bigger picture, including historical context.

Speaking to your post above, I'll never forget the day I heard Jerry Rubin had become a Wall Street investment banker. I was like, "What"? And it was only a few years after his early '70's activism.

Click to expand...

Jerry, Abbie and the Yippies were entertaining as Hell for many but like any other largely anarchistic protest group, they had become great at protesting and getting attention but they wouldn't have had the first clue what to do if finally asked to sit at the table, lead and come up with solutions to problems.

Chomsky said:

The only other time I felt so sold-out by the movement, was hearing of Abbie Hoffman's suicide in the late eighties. I was flummoxed in trying to understand how someone so otherwise brave and tough as Abbie, could take the easy way out. I later found he had earlier been diagnosed as bipolar. The heavy drug use of the 60's has sadly too often reared its head in the form of subsequent mental illness, far beyond that of the early acid casualties like Syd Barrett or Peter Green.

Click to expand...

I am not sure that Abbie Hoffman's drug use was at such a high level that it contributed to a form of mental illness which is often hereditary.
Hoffman was brilliant as both a whistleblower and as a raconteur and PR stunt artist but again, if you're finally asked to sit at the table, you may be forced to confront problems that you did not devote energy to solving in a practical manner. At least Rubin converted and channeled that energy into something post anarchy and managed to make a living at it.
And while one might or might not agree with the direction he chose to take, at least Rubin understood that the anarchist protest phase is really just a phase and an attempt to get attention.
Well, now he GOT some attention, and people wanted to know, "What do you do for an encore?"
He "Did IT".

PS: I still have "Steal This Book" and my kids have thumbed through parts of it and it's a head-scratcher for them, quite amusing.

MrWonka said:

I'm not a Democratic Socialist, but I think it's kind of sad that you seem to think what he's saying sounds horrible. What's wrong with the people having power in a society rather than corporations and individual millionaires and billionaires? Do you think that an Oligarchy sounds better than a Democracy?

Click to expand...

Funny thing is, liberal policies destroy small business, giving the Walmart's and McDonalds of the country even more marketshare, where you can force them to pay living wages, etc etc. Screw mom and pop business. Is the liberal utopia worth having only one retail store (Walmart) and one fast food restaurant chain (McDonalds) and one everything else where they will be so huge and rich that liberals can force them to comply with liberal's wish lists? The small fry can't do this so they will disappear.

MrWonka said:

You seem to be radically misinterpreting what he's saying. He doesn't mean literally telling you what to do. He simply means that it is the people who would decide the laws and have influence over leaders. That each individual person's voice would have equal say regardless of how much money they make, what color their skin is, what religion they worship, their gender, their last name...

Here is a list of the top 27 most free countries in the world today...

Countries in the world with the most freedom - Business Insider

America isn't even on it. Meanwhile, the countries that follow a political philosophy more like what Democratic Socialism strives for are all near the top of the list. Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Canada...

You think about freedom in terms of your ability to make a choice, but what if all the choices available to you are terrible? What if the choice you'd like to make isn't available to you because of circumstances outside of your control? Excessive competition can force people with little means into making some terrible choices whether they want to or not. In America you're only truly free if you have enough wealth to leverage it.

Click to expand...

We have that now. To think your system would have better results is naive.

Bullseye said:

WRONG.

What are you talking about? It's like you got stuck in 1968.

Click to expand...

The left believe the US was created in 1968, creationism at it's finest.

Moderate Right said:

The word "naive" comes to my mind. These people live in a fantasyland. It's kind of like saying that there should be peace in the world. Well, no duh. But, is that reality? No. It's fantasy. Ditto most everything he said.

Click to expand...

There should be liberalism in this world and, properly applied and together with appropriate conservatism, there will be a chance to solve problems instead of celebrating new ones.

KevinKohler said:

Democracy = 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

Click to expand...

That might not be the most dishonest assessment of democracy I've ever seen, but I can see it from here.
It assumes that the only form of democracy in use or available would be pure democracy, which has never existed in a nation state in the last 2500 years.

Bullseye said:

Back in the day, many, many days ago, I was a long-haired hippy weird freak

Click to expand...

You can't even spell it right.



Hippy is where a female has an attractively generous ass.

Moderate Right said:

The left believe the US was created in 1968, creationism at it's finest.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should change YOUR name to "Bullseye".
After all, you probably think you "scored a big hit" with that one.

PIPEWRENCH said:

What difference does it make if every aspect of your life is controlled. I guess it is Ok I you are a child your whole life and need direction.

Click to expand...

Controlled by you. He even said it himself.

Skeptic Bob said:

No. It is demonstrably false because they don’t want to tell me what I can put in my own body. They don’t tell women what they can and can’t do with their reproductive systems.

Conservative and liberals, including Democratic Socialists, all believe in big government. They just differ on what parts of your life the government should intrude. Generally speaking, libs want control over your money and conservatives want control over your body.

Click to expand...

Exactly. How can you be free if someone is making decisions on how to live your life.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

That might not be the most dishonest assessment of democracy I've ever seen, but I can see it from here.
It assumes that the only form of democracy in use or available would be pure democracy, which has never existed in a nation state in the last 2500 years.

Click to expand...

It is relevant even today. I have lived in the city and I have lived in the country. What is needed and good for one is not necessarily good for the other. Yet people in the country are having laws made that are needed in the city but not in the country. The cities are doing exactly what that statement implies right now to people in rural areas. The federal government is doing it to the states on a lesser scale thanks to the senate leveling the playing field. Otherwise vast regions of our country would be ruled by people living in a major city a thousand miles away with no comprehension and no care that different conditions require different solutions. It is sad that people in LA or NYC think they should decide how people in the great plains should live. That is not freedom by any imagination.

Fearandloathing said:

What power do you have, really?

If your president were to commit crimes, he can't be charged. If a Democrat decided to use an EO to take your guns away, what could you do besides armed revolt?

Government's purpose is to avoid revolt, mob rule, cults like Trump.

I live in what you people mistakenly call a "socialist" society, allegedly the least free. Yet in Canada, a leader told lies like Trump,he would be gone before Labor Day. We have no "impeachment" process, just Parliament where all that is needed is 50% plus one to end A Prime Minister's career. It takes a win on a "non confidence motion."

The result is the party in power then elects a new leader and he or she is given a chance or we go to an immediate election.

We FORCE change here. In the US you talk change, but it never comes

Click to expand...

OK. I'm still at work but at least I can take a breather now.

First off, I ALWAYS have whatever power I don't cede to another authority. That might sound a little esoteric but it's the foundation of individual liberty and, functionally, it means that as long as I am free to resist an outside force I retain power. I may not have control in every circumstance but control and power are two different things.

The idea that a sitting president can't be charged with a crime isn't entirely accurate. The process is to impeach first, then remove from office and then prosecute. It hasn't been done but it certainly could be if the crime warranted. There would, of course, need to be a political will to impeach and start the process but if the crime is heinous enough that shouldn't be a problem.

If a sitting president of any party decided to use an EO to do away with any of the rights expressly protected by the Constitution that would, most likely, result in the beginning of a process of impeachment. The real danger would be if a sitting president with a supermajority in both houses of congress used an EO to do away with one of the protected rights. I'm not sure exactly how that would play out but I suspect we'd get a first hand look at the interaction between "power" and "control" I mentioned earlier.

The idea is that in the US, unlike parliamentary governments, we have 50 states which, theoretically, will maintain a distinct level of independence should the federal government overreach. The idea is that the federal government can never FORCE change but can only encourage change or entertain certain aspects of change. Basically, if we never cede power at the individual, local and state levels we will be able to resist attempts to control us.

Bullseye said:

Don't conflate conservatives with Republicans - there are some common grounds but they are not interchangeable. Cons DON'T what large overpowering government - we favor federalism.

Click to expand...

Ahhh federalism...

There is substantial academic literature suggesting that smaller government units are easier for small, concentrated industries to capture than large ones. For example, a group of states or provinces with a large timber industry might have their legislature and/or their delegation to the national legislature captured by lumber companies. These states or provinces then becomes the voice of the industry, even to the point of blocking national policies that would be preferred by the majority across the whole federation. Moore and Giovinazzo (2012) call this "distortion gap".

Click to expand...

The opposite scenario is possible with very large industries, however. Very large and powerful industries (e.g. energy, banking, weapon system construction) can capture national governments, and then use that power to block policies at the federal, state or provincial level that the voters may want, although even local interests can thwart national priorities.

Click to expand...

Gee...what a lovely ideology! [sarcasm]
Sounds like we should rename it "assholism".

Some economists, such as Jon Hanson and his co-authors, argue that the phenomenon extends beyond just political agencies and organizations. Businesses have an incentive to control anything that has power over them, including institutions from the media, academia and popular culture, thus they will try to capture them as well. This phenomenon is called "deep capture".

Click to expand...

If I think about it enough, it almost sounds like "federalism" (assholism) is a worse threat to the people than communism.

Oh looky! Mister Trump has nominated a federalist.
Donald Trump nominates man whose firm tripled price of insulin to regulate drug companies

"Mr Azar’s nomination is unusual because HHS secretaries have previously come from the ranks of elected officials, such as governors, or top executive branch managers, rather than coming from the industry meant to be regulated by the department."

Click to expand...

How many of you have gotten the sarcastic "What has Donald Trump ever done that hurt you personally?" question ??

Well, here's another in a LONG LIST of things he has done that have hurt me personally and will continue to do so. In fact, this one might just bankrupt me.
The man seems to enjoy causing pain to vulnerable people.

PIPEWRENCH said:

It is relevant even today. I have lived in the city and I have lived in the country. What is needed and good for one is not necessarily good for the other. Yet people in the country are having laws made that are needed in the city but not in the country. The cities are doing exactly what that statement implies right now to people in rural areas. The federal government is doing it to the states on a lesser scale thanks to the senate leveling the playing field. Otherwise vast regions of our country would be ruled by people living in a major city a thousand miles away with no comprehension and no care that different conditions require different solutions. It is sad that people in LA or NYC think they should decide how people in the great plains should live. That is not freedom by any imagination.

Click to expand...

Right now people in small rural areas are deciding what's best for people in LA or NYC, quite the opposite of what you imagine.
Thanks to gerrymandering, Citizens United, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act and the Electoral College all acting in concert, that is, in fact, the net effect.

Case in point, Trump is attempting to force California to roll back pollution controls on cars.
That might not be a big deal in a rural flyover state but in California, where it used to be impossible to see even one block ahead because of the smog, it is very important.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Ahhh federalism...





Gee...what a lovely ideology! [sarcasm]
Sounds like we should rename it "assholism".



If I think about it enough, it almost sounds like "federalism" (assholism) is a worse threat to the people than communism.

Oh looky! Mister Trump has nominated a federalist.
Donald Trump nominates man whose firm tripled price of insulin to regulate drug companies



How many of you have gotten the sarcastic "What has Donald Trump ever done that hurt you personally?" question ??

Well, here's another in a LONG LIST of things he has done that have hurt me personally and will continue to do so. In fact, this one might just bankrupt me.
The man seems to enjoy causing pain to vulnerable people.

Click to expand...

What the **** are you talking about? This has to be one of your most ridiculous posts ever. And you base your lunacy on a Wikipedia article about "Regulatory Capture" that's marked as questionable for several reasons.

Harshaw said:

“This Campaign Is Literally Making Socialists”



Do you agree? Is that a fair description of "democratic socialism"?

Why or why not?

Further in, he confirms that he means it like it sounds:

Click to expand...

There are some developed, civilized countries that have Democratic Socialist forms of government, and in exactly NONE of them are corporations owned by the government unless those corporations are part of infrastructure, such as electrical service, water and sewage, etc.

Democratic socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Entrepreneurs still thrive. Some people get rich on merit. Hard work and/or higher education are still rewarded. But pure capitalism, unrestrained by socially motivated regulations, always leads to tyranny.