General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm a Democrat and I choose Capitalism over Socialism.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/winston_churchill_101776
ck4829
(34,974 posts)Ring a bell, give a dog some meat, and eventually the dog will associate the bell with meat even when there is no meat.
You can do that with people too... You can see it with the visceral outrage of Republicans and Trump supporters, when they hear 'SOCIALISM' on Fox News and yes, when people talk about 'LIBERALS' on Breitbart News.
We've been dealing with this for years, associating the 'other' with "weakness", "they're coming to steal your stuff and/or kill you", "they're going to pick minorities and refugees over you", "they are mentally ill", etc.
I'm going to support the people and groups the radical right wants to condition people against. I'm not going to be a 'good American' who will boo and hiss just because they hear "socialism", "liberal", "Democrat" today or "heretic against Trump" tomorrow.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And it means an economic system where there is no private control or ownership over any economic resources, means of production or means of distribution. It means either the government owns it or the government mandates it be equally owned among all employees. You cant start a bakery and hire people, for example, every person in that bakery would be an owner and have an equal voice in how it is run.
People have a real aversion to that system, for many good reasons.
And sadly for whatever reason a lot of people who are on the left have adopted the socialist moniker in one form or another who either dont believe in that model or dont even understand thats what socialism means.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)in this country. If it's paid for by taxpayer dollars, it's socialism
Post Office
Military
Public schools
Public libraries
Social Security/Medicare, etc.
Food Stamps
Buses and trains, unless owned privately
Airports
etc
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I think 99% of the problem comes from him missing the term.
He calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but what he advocates isnt Democratic socialism as defined by economists or as by actual Democratic Socialists. Why he advocates is more properly called Social Democracy and thats what the system found in Nordic countries is properly called.
Bernie making up his own definition of Democratic Socialist is a huge part of the problem here.
And no, just because its done by government does not make it Socialist or that government socialist. Neither you nor Bernie get to make up your own definitions for economic terms.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)it is so much more complicated than most, including me, know...
radius777
(3,624 posts)it's a bureacratic state that manages a mixed capitalist system.
the problem that often occurs is in that management, and the corruption/buying of politicians that results.
why the answer to bad capitalism isn't socialism, but good capitalism - what Dems including FDR have always believed.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)It's not all or nothing. A blend is what we really have now. No one is suggesting re-doing our govt. (hopefully)
Add:
Police
Fire
Good reminder about the "conditioning" (see BF Skinner amongst others.) secondwind.
Greed and Capitalism at all cost, is the Achilles Heel of Capitalism as we have it now. There has to be some cap on how many billions one person or corp can make a year, or be taxed at 85% on anything over that. Also, ALL income should be subject to Soc. Security Taxes. The idea that it gets cut off after 130K plus or whatever it is...just doesn't make any sense to me.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)not "means of production."
I don't see factories, farms, retail outlets, etc. on your list.
Midnight Writer
(21,546 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)How does Bernie distinguish his form of democratic socialism from the kind of democratic socialism the Socialist party favors?
And how is the average American supposed to know the difference? How would the average person know that Bernie supports some kind of democratic socialism that is different both from the Socialist Party's type, and from the dictionary?
From the platform of the SOCIALIST PARTY USA :
https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/platform
We are committed to the transformation of capitalism through the creation of a democratic socialist society
For these reasons we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources
Dictionary.com
noun
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
rainy
(6,083 posts)mia
(8,356 posts)Truth is - a Socialist government will "steal your stuff", however little you have, and much worse. The ruthless will always land on top, whatever the system.
At least with Capitalism, I feel that my children and grandchildren will have a better chance for survival after I'm gone.
kysrsoze
(6,010 posts)Our country has all kinds of socialism mixed in with capitalism, and it's been that way for decades and decades.
Tell me how much misery is spread by the following:
Social Security
Medicare/Medicaid/public healthcare resources and medical research
Public education
National defense
Fire and police protection
Public parks
Freeways and interstates
Public transit
Farm subsidies (without them, milk and other foods would be very expensive) and food stamps for the poor.
Etc., etc., etc.
And can you explain to us why you think pure capitalism would give you and your family a fighting chance? Exactly where do you see your family gaining if all of these items are eliminated?
mia
(8,356 posts)The United States is what it is because good people have legislated for the protections that you listed. I believe that the Democratic Party will continue to work for all of us.
I'm not arguing for pure Capitalism, or the elimination of any of these protections. We don't need to call ourselves Socialists in any form to continue to do good things. The term doesn't serve us at all.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)As has been pointed out by others, 90%+ of people on this board do not know the definition of socialism, and/or refuse to accept it.
"Means of production." Think, factories and farms.
kysrsoze
(6,010 posts)Im talking about socialistic elements in a mixed economy. We have never had the pure definition of either in this country. If we were to socialize everything, we would have pure socialism (Marxism). I doubt pure socialism will ever exist in government, because human nature tends to dictate there will always be those who game the system and take over. The only true socialists in this country were natives and possibly quakers.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)and in the post I was responding to, you said, "Our country has all kinds of socialism mixed in with capitalism ...".
There are not "all kinds of socialism". You are conflating your ideas of social services as "socialistic elements", which is probably OK, but such elements are not socialism (with a big S.) Socialism is defined.
kysrsoze
(6,010 posts)Seems to me to be a hypothetical against a near-hypothetical. I was going to say neither will ever happen here, but I guess I cant be 100% positive about Capitalism, given thats the goal of Republicans and the direction this country has headed over the last 2 decades.
MGKrebs
(8,138 posts)Virtually every system these days has some socialist aspects and some capitalist aspects.
In other words, you don't really have to choose between them. They are not mutually exclusive.
These concepts are like 'peace', or 'freedom'. They do not exist perfectly in this world. We do the best we can to find balance and harmony.
TheBlackAdder
(28,070 posts).
Pure Capitalism is just as destructive as pure Socialism. Neither can exist in a pristine form.
Hybrid economies are the strongest and resilient.
The US is in no way a Capitalist society, though many like to make that claim.
While Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, mentions what is known as "The Invisible Hand of Government," and many conservatives like to stress the need for a liassez faire governmental approach to the economy, they fail to mention that several chapters later, Smith mentions that for Capitalism to work, there must be an aggressive tiered tax system that heavily burdens the wealthy.
Notice that conservatives are pressuring for a laissez faire approach to the economy, while Trump is trying to strong-arm the Federal Reserve.
.
randr
(12,408 posts)our entire highway system, your local fire and police dept.s, the Social Security System, our national electrical distribution network, and most all public water systems? Your would turn all of these necessities over to private enterprises, correct?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)A government can provide services and that not be a socialist economic system.
A huge part of the problem is that people dont comprehend what socialism is and keep equating the government providing some basic services with socialism. Its not. Its not at all.
And when people keep using the term who clearly dont understand what socialism means as a economic system they muddy the waters.
Please, take some time and educate yourself on what socialism actually is, quit misusing the term to call any government service socialism, and quit causing a lot of the damm confusion that leads to this mess.
randr
(12,408 posts)and we are living in an era where we need to redefine our systems and purposes.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)So many people don't want to be educated. Nay, they refuse it. They are much more comfortable with their own, flawed narrative.
Response to dumbcat (Reply #63)
ChubbyStar This message was self-deleted by its author.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)I think that the current system is kicking our (the poor and middle classes) @$$ess.
I like the sound of Nordic socialism.
Their quality of life appears to be better.
"Social Capitalism
The Nordic community Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland practice a form of capitalism known as Social Capitalism. This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level. The four characteristics of Nordic Capitalism are:
· A commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade. Most of the production and distribution system is in private hands.
· The government supports individual autonomy and social mobility. It support its citizens in developing a healthy lifestyle free of hard drugs and alcohol and positive on exercise and nutritious eating. The government greatly supports preserving the environment and clean air and water. "
AlexSFCA
(6,137 posts)nordic system is funamentally capitalism reliant upon free markets and private enterprise.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Then in the next paragraph go on to explain it is not socialism but capitalism!!
The Nordic nations are not socialist.
I really only one socialist nation, Cuba. Maybe Venezuela makes the list.
N. Korea is too fucked up to be described.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)radius777
(3,624 posts)therefore is much easier for a collectivist system to work, as everyone has similar ways and needs, and won't resent 'the other' getting things 'for free'.
Socialism (or heavily socialist capitalism) is fundamentally a nationalist system. If the nation views itself as the provider for it's citizens, the nation will demand strict adherence to national values, codes of behavior, etc - like an insurance company. European 'social democracies' are far more nationalist, controlling and provincial than America.
Capitalism (including mixed capitalism) isn't really dependent upon any particular nation, it cares only about markets wherever they may be, and is fundamentally an internationalist/globalist system, with no true allegiance to any one country. Some see this as a negative, I see this as a positive, as it breeds cosmopolitanism and diversity. Most major cities are centers of global capitalism and trade, are also the most diverse and cosmopolitan, and also the most Democratic/liberal in terms of social values as well as having a strong safety-net and robust gov't services.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Nicolas Maduros Venezuela is one place where Friedrich Hayek's most dire warnings remain relevant.
Apr. 2017
https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/archives/2017/04/04/from-socialism-to-dictatorship/amp
SNIP
"Last week's episode is only the latest reminder of the tendency of socialism to lead to dictatorship, as identified by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom.
In 1944, when he wrote his book, Hayek noted that the crimes of the German National Socialists and Soviet Communists were, in great part, the result of growing state control over the economy.
As he explained, growing state interference in the economy leads to massive inefficiencies and long queues outside empty shops.
A state of perpetual economic crisis then leads to calls for more planning.
SNIP
But economic planning is inimical to freedom.
As there can be no agreement on a single plan in a free society, the centralization of economic decision-making has to be accompanied by centralization of political power in the hands of a small elite.
When, in the end, the failure of central planning becomes undeniable, totalitarian regimes tend to silence the dissenterssometimes through mass murder.
Hayek was fortunate enough to live to see the defeat of both the Nazi and Soviet totalitarian regimes.
Unfortunately, there are still places where Hayek's most dire warnings remain relevant. Nicolas Maduro's Venezuela is one such place.
More of a Great Enlightening Read at Link
secondwind
(16,903 posts)Wwcd
(6,288 posts)The writing of Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom tells the tale of how a nation falls.
A free society better heed the warnings because once its traded away for door #2 with the picture of utopian socialism painted on the wrapping, you don't get the free enterprise society back again..
#SocialismSucks
JCanete
(5,272 posts)No there is no such thing as a purely capitalistic system that doesn't descend into crony capitalism, that doesn't end in consolidation, and the ownership of government by a handful of oligarchs. When everything is commodified you get the sicknesses that run rampant in this nation, and you can't take what's going on in Venezuela in a bubble. Venezuela is fucked up by virtue of outside meddling, sanctions over the years, etc. That has not exactly resulted in the healthiest, purest form of democracy, but it is still a democracy, although people pushing agendas involving theft of the nation's resources for personal gain continue to flood the narrative with propaganda.
I will never hold up Chavez or his successor as wonderful unflawed people, but the question remains, what did the alternative look like. What did we want? What have we ever wanted? To exploit the shit out of any small nation we could, not even really for our people, but for our powerful business interests, which is why there's such a thing as economic hit-men. Talk to me when there is an example in the world of socialism determined by the people and not strong-men leaders(who are the result of our interference, not inspite of it), and where a free press reigns....as if we even have that here anymore, since most of it is owned and stilted according to the business interests of its parent companies. Let us all sing the praises of capitalism!
Your scare tactics don't account at all for the socialism that does exist right here at home, not to mention in european nations that as well, have a mixture of socialist and market economies, and for that matter, I can't think of a candidate who is running on a ticket of government controllled production of all things. Who is this fearmongering even supposed to resemble in American politics at this time?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,272 posts)My freeper father in law gave me his book. Right after he tried to pawn off his old Newsmax magazines on me.
TheBlackAdder
(28,070 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)and when there are social safety nets in place, especially during down cycles.
ProfessorGAC
(64,413 posts)It's the only way to prevent excess and exploitation.
There is no solid data to support that income disparity, economic growth, or inflationary pressures are kept in check absent a strong central point of regulation.
Tried it in the 1930's. How'd that work out? Depression
Tried it in the 1980's. How'd that work out? Largest proportional growth of national debt and a 4 year recession.
Tried it in the early 2000's. How'd that work out? Worst recession (counting the depression as a different phenomenon) ever.
The Bloom acolytes don't admit it, but that doesn't make them right.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)I'm advocating for regulation, not against.
ProfessorGAC
(64,413 posts)My point was that we tried no regulation three times and they were dismal failures.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)You're preaching to the choir.
ProfessorGAC
(64,413 posts)Because i share it.
Mike Rows His Boat
(389 posts)I grew up in a socialist country. Thats pretty much how we felt.
Thats why we put children, good education available to all, and universal healthcare for all above most all else.
Capitalism is nothing more than another unequal system of rationing.
malthaussen
(17,065 posts)50 Shades Of Blue
(9,771 posts)Duppers
(28,094 posts)Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)anyone left of Limbaugh is a socialist. The term to a con has nothing to do with government ownership of means of production.
malthaussen
(17,065 posts)"Socialism is a way of sharing misery equally."
So, I reckon Capitalism is a way of sharing misery unequally? Winston may switch from "blessings" to "miseries" at pleasure; what matters, IMO, is how the same thing is distributed.
And if one favors unequal sharing of misery, tell me, who decides who gets the fuzzy end of the lollipop?
Here's another quote for you to ponder: "People love aristocracy, as long as they get to be the aristocrats."
-- Mal
theaocp
(4,223 posts)I love logic and this caught my attention. I'm sorry I got caught up in the word salad. Apples do need to be compared to apples. Thanks!
randr
(12,408 posts)during the past industrial revolution.
We are now in a new age and it will not be defined by archaic terminology.
We are in need of a new world order that leaves the industrial models in the past.
As a Democrat I hope my party is more inclusive of ideologies that are evolving and we recognize that our nation is diverse in every manner.
The more ideas and voices at the table the more solutions we have at our disposal.
Snellius
(6,881 posts)These historical labels have just become propaganda buzzwords that no longer apply. They never meant much any way but for the fact that sides in the post-industrial class struggle needed a name. Stalinism was not communism. Modern corporatism is not capitalism. Is China a capitalist or communist country? A democrat can agree with all the ideals of socialism and yet not want to be called a "socialist". Why? Democrats should be aware of how much they share the same anti-Pinko indoctrination with which the US armored itself after the war, when every other country in the world adopted socialism in some form or another, except the US. Are Americans surprised that even in Thailand where the cave boys were recently rescued, they have universal health care? And even here, Medicare is socialist. Social Security is socialist. And when they were proposed, they were called "socialist", as a derogatory term. We get too carried away with the power of words. To fear the power of words is a self-ensnaring trap.
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)All of which, and much much more, were brought to you by your friendly neighborhood socialists and were opposed at every turn, often with deadly force, by your side, the capitalists.
(No need to turn these words into proper nouns, by the way; that makes you look like a dotard.)
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Please take the time to read and understand what socialism is as an economic system instead of redefining it to mean whatever you want it to.
ck4829
(34,974 posts)Which is any possible thing the left and Democrats can do.
If we do it, it's socialism according to Republicans.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)using the correct definition? The Republicans misuse it, so we should, too?
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)... century labor history. You will find that all of the worker protections referenced came from socialists like the Wobblies, labor unions, and Eugene Debs himself. Capitalists used deadly force to break up the strikes organized by socialists.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Oops.
kcr
(15,300 posts)If so, you are the one who seriously needs to do some reading.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Yes, socialists fought for that back in the day- as part of a stepping stone to actual socialism.
I can be for workers having rights and freedom and being well paid and not be a socialist.
Socialism is an economic term with an actual meaning.
kcr
(15,300 posts)But it is quite a loaded term, and ripe for exploitation. I don't think it's important how people identify themselves. It's the fact this part of American history has been so utterly forgotten.
whathehell
(28,968 posts)Perhaps it's you who should "read and understand what socialism is as an economic system".
brooklynite
(93,844 posts)...since then, no nation has voluntarily adopted a socialist economy. That says something.
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)Gol' durned spell check!
Also, what about Cuba?
Mike Rows His Boat
(389 posts)malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)pecosbob
(7,502 posts)as 'a loose cannon' responsible in large part for the massacre at Gallipoli and considered extremely reckless. He was voted out of office before the war had even ended as unable to administer the peace. The average Briton did not believe he had any concept of how to run a state during peacetime. I'll listen to what he had to say about the politics of war...I have no time to listen to anything he had to say about administration of government as he didn't have a clue.
Next time choose a better quote.
jalan48
(13,797 posts)Nanjeanne
(4,877 posts)and not unfettered capitalism. I choose public highways and public schools and libraries and police I choose working wages and I stand with unions. I choose Medicare and SS.
haele
(12,581 posts)Democratic Socialism is a centralized "government owns the farms and factories as well as the common infrastructure" political system. Everyone works for the government.
Social Democracy is a democratic government where the government owns or manages the social commons or common service infrastructure by taxes or fees.
The services the government owns or manages is done so typically without a disbursed profit margin; all profits become general revenue to either provide more/improved services or to hire more people when there's a need for greater employment (which in turn, provides more tax revenue to fund the services).
I am weary of people who talk about being "Democratic Socialists" while espousing Social Democrat views.
Haele
MGKrebs
(8,138 posts)Reg: Fuck off! 'Judean People's Front'. We're the People's Front of Judea! 'Judean People's Front'.
Francis: Wankers.
I do keep thinking that, but there is a historical difference between the definitions as they were practiced up until Bernie became popular.
So yes, I'm a bit nervous when Americans say they're a Democratic Socialist, because much as Castro's Cuba was better somewhat for the poor there than Batista's Cuba was, there was still that "populist authoritarian" attitude that seriously hurt the middle class - who also had no love for Batista - very badly.
The trick is to bring everyone below the middle class into the middle class. And frankly, that isn't what Democratic Socialism was about back in the day. It may have changed, but there's no reason to claim a moniker that was never really very successful. It's rather like wearing a Che Guevara tee without caring to look up the history of what Che actually did before Castro off'ed him.
Y'know, Rebelling is fun. However, once the fight is over, Governing isn't very fun at all. And that's when everything falls apart for the Revolution.
Haele
Eyeball_Kid
(7,410 posts)The US has socialism intermixed with capitalism. Over the past several decades, social instability has grown as the balance has shifted to unregulated capitalism.
Don't share this with anyone, but it's been known for many decades that unregulated capitalism is the forerunner of fascism.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)K & R
Free Enterprise with Regulations in place to keep the Mob out of it.
MAGNITSKY SANCTIONS do just this.
TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)Aren't most Western economies a mixture these days?
Capitalism plus some social/public provision, with political discourse centering around the exact balance of the two?
And in some cases, there's already public/state ownership of certain infrastructure and services.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of miseries. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of blessings.
VOX
(22,976 posts)As noted upthread, capitalism works best when its regulated.
Because honesty, integrity and concern for a greater good; responsibility and well-being are in tragically short supply these days.
lamp_shade
(14,796 posts)RhodeIslandOne
(5,042 posts)No one on the Democratic scene is advocating true socialism.
procon
(15,805 posts)Capitalism is about profits and socialism is focused on people, and the two are intermeshed. The US is a mix of both where the government manages massive national projects focused on things that the private sector cannot, or will not, provide. Capitalism grows as entrepreneurs find ways to exploit and profit from the increased economic activity generated by the government's programs, just as it did under the old Public Works Administration that was part of the New Deal's socialism during the Great Depression.
As Dems, we look for ways to expand social programs as a means of uplifting people and increasing opportunities and equality, goals that capitalism was never intended to address. We have always used a socialism approach to expand on infrastructure projects, and transportation, healthcare, science, education, defense and security that impact the country as a whole. These long standing efforts might be gov't only, a private/public partnership, or outsourced to a private contractor, but there's no denying that
socialism is here to stay, and steadily advancing, because it works.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Let us know how it goes.
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)"No workingman can clearly understand what socialism means without becoming and remaining a socialist. It is simply impossible for him to be anything else and the only reason that all workingmen are not socialists is that they do not know what it means. (emphasis mine)
Ace Rothstein
(3,099 posts)What has happened to this place?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)Perhaps they'll kick off with this one:
"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."
Thatcher, in an interview in Women's Own in 1987
Blaukraut
(5,689 posts)global1
(25,167 posts)You need to decide whether you are a Repug or a Dem. If you are a Repug - you have no business posting here. This is called Democratic Underground.
If you decide you are a Dem - then all Dems need to focus and ban together to defeat the Repugs and the Trump Administration in Nov. That is where all our emphasis needs to be directed now.
Don't let the Repugs - confuse the issue and define us. There is plenty of time after we take back control from the insanity that we've experienced since Nov 2016 to work within the Party to define ourselves and the form of government we want to work under.
Dems of all persuasions amongst ourselves will work on a 'bi-partisan' basis to compromise and define ourselves as a Party. And that's more of what we were used to - when the Dems and Repugs could compromise in the past. Those days are gone between Repugs and Dems - but they're still alive and kicking within the Dem Party.
What I'm seeing happening here at DU is we're getting back into the conflicts among ourselves that we had in the campaigns of 2016 and we're beginning to fall into the same traps. We just can't afford to be sucked into that conflict again. You all know what I mean.
Our mission here and now is to defeat the Repugs and Trump and to take back control from these treasonous bastards. If you choose to accept that mission then don't get sidetracked by these definitional road hazards that the other side is trying to throw us off in.
The Midterms need to be an historic election. In order to take back control we need to turn out the most people ever to vote in a U.S. election. The Repugs are focused. They will cheat and steal votes by any manner that they could. Voter suppression, gerrymandering and help by Putin and the Russians is all in play and if you want to defeat that then the only way is to turn out in numbers that they can't overturn without casting suspicions and exposing their illegal tricks.
No Dems - now is not the time to get into conflicts amongst ourselves. Now is the time to ban together and take back control. If you can't handle that - then get out of the way and let the real Dems do the right thing.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)at the same time right?
Do you also know how reductionist and propaganda laden your post is that gets in the way of promoting the social good through good policy that takes those markets out of areas where they have no business being? Europe has many "socialist" countries....all of which have markets, all of which are doing so much better than us on so many different indices measuring quality of life.
DFW
(54,050 posts)We didn't even have one when the Warsaw Pact was intact. They were just elitist oligarchies hijacking the word, no different from Republicans calling themselves "conservative."
JCanete
(5,272 posts)truly democratic nation with free press and socialism. It has often been a coopted term involved with a power grab. As to Venezuela, I think that the problems of outside influence have created the need for a strong-man leader, which obviously makes freedom of the press(again a big issue when tons of money comes in from corporations, outside and inside, to frame the narrative through the auspices of "free" press), and fair elections, harder to come by.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Why not quote Maggie Thatcher on the subject as well?
Paladin
(28,202 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)AlexSFCA
(6,137 posts)were gonna have to resume this discussion after the November election. Right now all that matters is electing people with letter D to their names; nothing else matters one bit.
Fullduplexxx
(7,818 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Sounds better to the younger generations, I guess.
Funny enough, that also means I'm down with a majority of the Democratic Party Platform.
yesphan
(1,586 posts)Oklahoma had the largest number of socialist candidates serving in the legislature
than any other state. Not socialist leaning Democrats, Socialists. I suppose to protect
from the nearly unfettered capitalism that eventual lead to the great depression.
I suspect the term socialist had a different connotation back then compared to today's that has been conflated with
communism, etc.
moondust
(19,917 posts)The American duopoly seems to have many Americans thinking everything is a binary choice. It's not. It's always a mix, a balance. Even the U.S. has always been a mix of how much government does and how much is left to the private sector.
Yesterday there was a thread here with a YouTube presentation by world traveler Rick Steves. It's an hour-long clip in which at one point he describes how life is better for so many Europeans because of their shorter work weeks, better health care and benefits, etc. Sadistic Republicans who want desperate slaves working for peanuts so they can get obscenely rich and not have to pay taxes have always called that "evil European socialism" which is ridiculous. I enjoyed the whole clip:
http :// youtu.be/ UU8oelnzdAQ
(Remove spaces in link to view on YouTube.)
Duppers
(28,094 posts)Mia, I do not think there would have to be a petition to "Stop Militarized Response to Standing Rock Water Protectors," if this country were a quite bit more socialistic, which protects vulnerable people a hell of a lot more than capitalism.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)I am not defined by any one belief or series of beliefs...I am not a proponent of a single system or a blended approach in all aspects of life.
I support:
* a clean environment - water, air, responsible soil management - because the current trajectory will not support my grandchildren into adulthood around mid-century. Without these things, civilization itself is at risk, and even if that risk could be mitigated with technology - it won't serve the least among us and BILLIONS will die. Maybe pure capitalist racist asshats will think "well, it won't be OUR people dying" or "it will be the RIGHT billions dying anyway", but make no mistake, our continued inaction on a global scale is making this certainty only more bloody and horrific by the day...I believe we can do better than that.
* a healthy public square - including roads, bridges, dams, airports, seaports and the utilities we all depend upon such as sewers, water, electric and internet - that is supported by progressive and proportional benefit taxation - companies and corporations would NOT be granted "externalities" by passing on their share of the maintenance costs to the public as blackmail payments for keeping factories or businesses in the locality...I believe we MUST do better than that.
* a well-regulated and controlled finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector of the national economy...banking and investing is BORING, and it should always be BORING - it should be long-term focused and managed for minimal risk to produce maximum benefit to the MOST PEOPLE possible (NOT maximum risk to produce the maximum benefit to the minimum number of people exploiting the system)...gambling with other people's money, taking huge risks for huge paydays and lavish lifestyles is NOT banking and should be illegal as it is currently practiced. 2008 taught us nothing, making the eventual collapse of the system inevitable...sadly, this is not "capitalism", it is hedonism and theft dressed up in custom tailored Armani suits and arriving in Bentley or Bugatti vehicles with underage models and jewelry....I believe that humanity deserves more than a society obsessing about wealth and status and material goods at the expense of arts, communities, social and group interaction, love and intimacy...we must demand better than that.
* an education system that is focused on the betterment of individuals AND communities...community and state universities that are free to attend and work to educate people to their maximum abilities. That does not always mean "college" or "graduate degrees" either...it can be apprenticeships or trade schools or public service instead of military service...it means seeing the benefit of having an educated population instead of an indoctrinated or manipulated one. It means that if military spending is the lion's share of our national expenditures, we are doing it all wrong...we should be ashamed to not be better than that.
* a social justice system that addresses the very real and persistent issues of racism, sexism, prejudice and hate that continue to infect our society and are used by the duplicitous and greedy to profit from human misery...why should it be more profitable to discriminate in housing or in opportunities than it is to lift people up, instead of hold the down? When we figure out THAT equation, when we spend the majority of our national treasure on THAT effort, when we can look at our fellow citizens and see another American instead of a description and a hyphen and suspicion, then we will have a country worth worship and love and adoration...for now, and just barely, we have the hope of one day becoming such a nation, and even that flickering flame of hope is powerful enough to stir feelings of pride and nationalist desires...but what COULD it be? SHOULD it be?
People are led by others who do not wish them the best, the 'leaders' want more for themselves at the expense of everyone else and then want protections of "law" and "order" to prevent it from ever being clawed back as illicit gains...instead of building a nation and a society that would highlight the best of humanity, we have hyper-consumerism and call it capitalism to make people believe that it is real.
WE ARE NOT A CAPITALIST SOCIETY...WE ARE A FASCIST STATE ON THE VERGE OF TOTALITARIANISM.
The real question is not about capitalism and socialism...it is about representative government or dictatorship. Nearly 40% of the public is willing to go the strongman route in the hope that by supporting the demon they will get preferential treatment and status in the hell to follow...and they WILL...briefly...until the scapegoat well dries up and a new boogeyman is needed. "Socialism" can mean many things, but the tenets of using social resources to build a better society is rarely the one used to describe it, and that is by design as sure as the sun will set in the west tonight.
mia
(8,356 posts)I agree.
Iggo
(47,486 posts)Is this where I pinky-swear to never ever vote for a smelly evil socialist?
This shit's gettin' old.
demmiblue
(36,743 posts)It is getting so bizarre up in here.
Iggo
(47,486 posts)demmiblue
(36,743 posts)Iggo
(47,486 posts)Can't believe I made myself bleed my own blood.
H2O Man
(73,308 posts)I almost always drive on public roads and highways. I think that FDR and LBJ were correct in advocating for programs that their opposition always attacked as "socialist."
Maybe it's just me. I don't know, though, as I think many others feel the same way.
I was a public school teacher for most of my working life. I don't like being labeled as a Socialist, nor do I want the Democratic Party to self-identify as such.
You have the right to self-identify. I don't think anyone will argue that .....and if they do, I'd surely do my best to set them straight.
Likewise, each and every member of our party has the right to self-identify. A minority identify as Democrats who are socialist. Though a minority, they include a lot of the best grass roots party activists.
All problems are easily resolved, if everyone respects everyone else's right to self-identify. United, we'll kick the stuffing out of the republicans in 2018 and 2020. That should be the goal.
applegrove
(118,011 posts)blueinredohio
(6,797 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)Well regulated markets,progressive taxation, and a robust safety net is the best guarantor of shared prosperity. Every command economy has been a dismal failure.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I think you are likely a troll, I could be wrong, but thats my instinct.
Anyway, we've been a hybrid of socialism and capitalism for ages. And thats the best model when balanced correctly.
lamsmy
(155 posts)First, stop thinking of economic policy as a static one time choice. You can't just say, "Okay, this is exactly how we are going to do things for evet more becsuse we think it is thr best policy." Life, and economic conditions are constantly changing, and economic policies have to adjust accordingly.
Second, every nation on the planet has a mixed economy. That is some capitalist practices and some socialist. Even NK has quietly allowed some private sector trading.
And different times call for different policies. FDR 's New Deal was very left of centre and proved to be exactly what the American economy needed in the 1930s. It laid the foundation for a solid middle class and world beating economy.
Five years ago Portugals's leaders ignored their creditors calls for austerity and massive budget cuts. Instead they invested heavily in infrastructure and job support programs. Today their country boasts the strongest growth in southern Europe, easily outperforming Greece and Italy who both followed the "experts'"advice and are still struggling.
Discarding any economic option because some politicians said it was "bad", is just dumb. Capitalism is not all good and Socialism is not all bad. And visa versa. The more tools you keep in your policy tool box, the better likelihood you will be able to fix
Kaleva
(36,146 posts)Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)If you chose the latter then I won't be so quick to believe your OP. Democratic socialism requires capitalism to work. And vice Versa.
Response to mia (Original post)
pangaia This message was self-deleted by its author.
Midnight Writer
(21,546 posts)tenderfoot
(8,424 posts)and the most overrated figure of the 20th Century.
radius777
(3,624 posts)FDR was a "prime the pump" Keynesian, not a Marxist, and he was centrist on issues like foreign policy. He was more to the 'left' on economics due to the Great Depression and the dire need for a social safety net and infrastructure. IOW, his support for 'socialist' policies was more situational, about 'saving capitalism from itself' than about adherence to socialist ideology.
All Dems since have followed in that basic mold, adjusting for the situation, in trying to find that balance between growth and redistribution.
sfwriter
(3,032 posts)Socialism is a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control. Capitalism is a system where capital controls the means of production, dictates the wages of workers and property rights are paramount.
When we bail out the auto industry, that is socialism.
When we provide for the poor, sick and unemployed, that is socialism.
When we bail out Wall Street, that is capitalism.
When we provide infrastructure, education, and resource management through government, that is socialism.
Without some socialism, capitalism is intolerable. We've done it. Slavery, the gilded age, pollution, smog are all quite compatible with capitalism.
Social control is all that keeps the wolf at bay.
My take anyhow.
eleny
(46,166 posts)I receive the Word Of The Day email from M-W each morning. Trending words are also included in the mailing. Today's trending words are:
exculpatory
ideologue
socialism
uphold.
Mendocino
(7,430 posts)Oneironaut
(5,461 posts)One can "choose" both - arguably the best way of maintaining a system. Pure Capitalism and pure Socialism would totally destroy a society - it's fairly obvious you wouldn't want to go that extreme.
brewens
(13,393 posts)as well. As with our medical system. We have Medicare, medicaid, ACA and the rest of the cluster.
Saying just capitalism over socialism, makes it sound like you'd go along with Paul Ryan. It's a choice we're never even giving. I don't even know anyone that advocates straight up socialism. We are accused of that all the time though.
lancelyons
(988 posts)I'm a democrat that favors capitalism as well and I'm ok with an efficient stream lined government. Of course I believe all people should be treated equally and as you would like to be treated.
aeromanKC
(3,307 posts)Nuff said.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)I am definitely a Democratic Socialist.
lame54
(35,130 posts)They can be blended