How do you define Socialism?

[Anonymous]

I had an Uber driver the other day who relatively recently moved here from Venezuela. I asked what brought him here and he said “socialism.” Said the price controls are all illusory bc you have to pay bribes for everything. Sounded bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had an Uber driver the other day who relatively recently moved here from Venezuela. I asked what brought him here and he said “socialism.” Said the price controls are all illusory bc you have to pay bribes for everything. Sounded bad.

Venezuela is on the verge of collapse which is what happens when you have actual socialism

Many Ds are perscribing the scandanavian approach of a much more robust safety net through higher progressives taxes but a mostly capitalistic economy

The problem is Scandinavian countries are small and homogeneous and people are generally more ashamed of being moochers. The lower class of the United States would overwhelm any type of robust safety net which would cause taxes to shoot up on the actual productive members of society

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had an Uber driver the other day who relatively recently moved here from Venezuela. I asked what brought him here and he said “socialism.” Said the price controls are all illusory bc you have to pay bribes for everything. Sounded bad.

Venezuela is on the verge of collapse which is what happens when you have actual socialism

Many Ds are perscribing the scandanavian approach of a much more robust safety net through higher progressives taxes but a mostly capitalistic economy

The problem is Scandinavian countries are small and homogeneous and people are generally more ashamed of being moochers. The lower class of the United States would overwhelm any type of robust safety net which would cause taxes to shoot up on the actual productive members of society

How many of those people could name a single Scandinavian head of state? This Scandinavia stuff is empty branding for whatever mix of policies the Dems happen to prefer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had an Uber driver the other day who relatively recently moved here from Venezuela. I asked what brought him here and he said “socialism.” Said the price controls are all illusory bc you have to pay bribes for everything. Sounded bad.

Venezuela is on the verge of collapse which is what happens when you have actual socialism

Many Ds are perscribing the scandanavian approach of a much more robust safety net through higher progressives taxes but a mostly capitalistic economy

The problem is Scandinavian countries are small and homogeneous and people are generally more ashamed of being moochers. The lower class of the United States would overwhelm any type of robust safety net which would cause taxes to shoot up on the actual productive members of society

How many of those people could name a single Scandinavian head of state? This Scandinavia stuff is empty branding for whatever mix of policies the Dems happen to prefer

And, here are some things that lots of Scandinavians do not have:
dishwashers
garbage disposals
cars
disposable income
air conditioning

Not sure I want to give up those things, although I sure would like more disposable income......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had an Uber driver the other day who relatively recently moved here from Venezuela. I asked what brought him here and he said “socialism.” Said the price controls are all illusory bc you have to pay bribes for everything. Sounded bad.

Venezuela is on the verge of collapse which is what happens when you have actual socialism

Many Ds are perscribing the scandanavian approach of a much more robust safety net through higher progressives taxes but a mostly capitalistic economy

The problem is Scandinavian countries are small and homogeneous and people are generally more ashamed of being moochers. The lower class of the United States would overwhelm any type of robust safety net which would cause taxes to shoot up on the actual productive members of society

How many of those people could name a single Scandinavian head of state? This Scandinavia stuff is empty branding for whatever mix of policies the Dems happen to prefer

And, here are some things that lots of Scandinavians do not have:
dishwashers
garbage disposals
cars
disposable income
air conditioning

Not sure I want to give up those things, although I sure would like more disposable income......

Also, my understanding is that it’s easier to get fired in at least Denmark. In other words, they’ve got a better net to catch you when you fall, but you fall more often. Maybe that’s a better mix than what we have. But it’s not a no-brainer arrangement even to socialists. Look at France; super hard to get fired but plenty of socialists

[Anonymous]

What did Socialists use before candles? Electricity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What did Socialists use before candles? Electricity.

Hahaha! Good one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Socialism is the battle cry of the undereducated and fearful.

No Democrat wants socialism as a form of government. Not one.

What absolute BS. And I do believe Bernie, AOC, et al would beg to differ.

No they wouldn’t. Even Democratic Socialism isn’t socialism.

Turn off Fox and read an actual newspaper. Better yet, borrow your grandkid’s social studies book.

If anything, it seems you need to take your own advice.

“The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States.”
-from the DSA website

So what?

So there is no disagreement between PPs and the Democratic Socialists of America party that Democratic Socialism as pursued in the US by prominent Democratic politicians is indeed socialism, in direct contradiction to the bolded part above.

+1,000
There’s a reason they’re denying it. I’d be embarrassed too if my party had a huge socialist wing.

Ha! That's rich. The entire GOP is an embarrassment of corruption and lies. A barbarous tool of the wealthy. I'll take the party that has a small minority who call themselves "Democratic Socialists" while the rest of us seek reasonable solutions to real problems over your racist, sexist, trapped-in-the-shitty-past, climate-change-denying, environment-destroying-in-the-name-of-a-quick-buck, lying, corrupt GOP any day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just read some philosophy, economics and then familiarize yourself with the philosophy. For some strange reason the ideas won't die
Don't ask the idiots here

I wondered about this and believe I found a somewhat satisfying answer. As a generalization, leftist politics appeals to those who have character traits that are open, creative, and empathetic. These are our entrepreneurs, our artists, and our risk takers. They are more idealistic in their worldview, with more focus on the result, and less concern on how to get there. What leftists/progressives tend to do, then, is confuse their intentions with the method of achieving those results. They think the end justifies the means. They want racial equality in the outcome of our education system, so therefore it is OK to use racially discriminating policies like affirmative action to achieve it. They want more income/wealth equality, so tax-and-redistribution is a good way to get there. They want everyone to have good quality health care, and government funded single-payer is the fastest way to get there. They want affordable rent - therefore rent control.

Look at their intentions: racial equality, lower income/wealth inequality, good quality healthcare available to everyone, affordable rent - all of these are laudable goals. Are right-wing/conservatives against any of these outcomes? I know I'm not. I am in strong agreement with each and every one of these goals. Where we diverge is that the leftist/progressives will argue that because their intentions are good, that their methods are good, and that anyone who is against their method of achieving these goals must therefore be against the goals themselves. And thus Republicans/Conservatives are evil, racists, homophobic, xenophobic, and etc.

That's a nice speech and all, but it's total BS. Republicans and conservatives are not interested in any of those lofty and laudable goals. They are interested in making as much money for themselves as they possibly can and keeping it all for themselves. Plain and simple. They could give a rat's ass about anyone else.

[Anonymous]

The democratic socialist du jour, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, recently gave her own definition on Stephen Colbert’s show:

I believe that in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live. So what that means is health care as a human right. It means that every child, no matter where you are born, should have access to a college or trade school education if they so choose it. And, you know, I think that no person should be homeless if we can have public structures and public policies to allow for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States.

Not bad at all.

[Anonymous]

Socialism is the belief in the inherent value, dignity, and equality of all people. Dude if you deride socialism you have said it all. Bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Socialism is the belief in the inherent value, dignity, and equality of all people. Dude if you deride socialism you have said it all. Bye.

lol

many of us think the government programs over the last 50 years have taken that away. They have created a culture of dependency, they are largely ineffective and they have taken the very value and dignity away from these folks the value of work and self sufficiency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Socialism is the belief in the inherent value, dignity, and equality of all people. Dude if you deride socialism you have said it all. Bye.

lol

many of us think the government programs over the last 50 years have taken that away. They have created a culture of dependency, they are largely ineffective and they have taken the very value and dignity away from these folks the value of work and self sufficiency.

Many of you would be wrong and have taken to the symbolism of the "welfare queen" propagated by Ronald Reagan. Clinton imposed workfare programs embraced by many purple states, and it has proven effective. Only those truly disabled are dependent on the government. The alternative is they would be dying in the streets - oh and hint, there are a disproporationate of those on disability in Red states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had an Uber driver the other day who relatively recently moved here from Venezuela. I asked what brought him here and he said “socialism.” Said the price controls are all illusory bc you have to pay bribes for everything. Sounded bad.

Venezuela is on the verge of collapse which is what happens when you have actual socialism

Many Ds are perscribing the scandanavian approach of a much more robust safety net through higher progressives taxes but a mostly capitalistic economy

The problem is Scandinavian countries are small and homogeneous and people are generally more ashamed of being moochers. The lower class of the United States would overwhelm any type of robust safety net which would cause taxes to shoot up on the actual productive members of society

How many of those people could name a single Scandinavian head of state? This Scandinavia stuff is empty branding for whatever mix of policies the Dems happen to prefer

Indeed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just read some philosophy, economics and then familiarize yourself with the philosophy. For some strange reason the ideas won't die
Don't ask the idiots here

I wondered about this and believe I found a somewhat satisfying answer. As a generalization, leftist politics appeals to those who have character traits that are open, creative, and empathetic. These are our entrepreneurs, our artists, and our risk takers. They are more idealistic in their worldview, with more focus on the result, and less concern on how to get there. What leftists/progressives tend to do, then, is confuse their intentions with the method of achieving those results. They think the end justifies the means. They want racial equality in the outcome of our education system, so therefore it is OK to use racially discriminating policies like affirmative action to achieve it. They want more income/wealth equality, so tax-and-redistribution is a good way to get there. They want everyone to have good quality health care, and government funded single-payer is the fastest way to get there. They want affordable rent - therefore rent control.

Look at their intentions: racial equality, lower income/wealth inequality, good quality healthcare available to everyone, affordable rent - all of these are laudable goals. Are right-wing/conservatives against any of these outcomes? I know I'm not. I am in strong agreement with each and every one of these goals. Where we diverge is that the leftist/progressives will argue that because their intentions are good, that their methods are good, and that anyone who is against their method of achieving these goals must therefore be against the goals themselves. And thus Republicans/Conservatives are evil, racists, homophobic, xenophobic, and etc.

That's a nice speech and all, but it's total BS. Republicans and conservatives are not interested in any of those lofty and laudable goals. They are interested in making as much money for themselves as they possibly can and keeping it all for themselves. Plain and simple. They could give a rat's ass about anyone else.

PP here. Thanks for proving my point in bold.