AJ Oliver

Are You a Socialist ?

Recommended Posts

This is actually pretty well done . .  

I guess I am . . 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the author's definition of "the left",  I am on the left.  

According to the author's definition of a "socialist", I am a socialist.

Maybe "Socialist" needs to be more simply defined as "Greed is not good."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some things to happen at all, one is a socialist.  A fire department does not happen at all unless there is a socialist structure.  I get upset when free market failures are not part of the school curriculum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That video confuses democratic socialism with pure socialism - government ownership of the means of production - by lumping both under the term "socialism".   I don't think it is particularly helpful.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laker said:

For some things to happen at all, one is a socialist.  A fire department does not happen at all unless there is a socialist structure.

Can you please expound on that some more??  I'm not following your logic here.  TIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is also a misunderstanding with "socialism" and "socialized".  We socialize all kinds of services and benefits.  M4A is just another socialized program.  Socialism, where the people own the means of production, is not even close to what Democrats are proposing.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

That video confuses democratic socialism with pure socialism - government ownership of the means of production - by lumping both under the term "socialism".   I don't think it is particularly helpful.

"Democratic socialism" is as much of a farce as communism or pure socialism is.  It's a pipe dream that requires unicorns to run the economy.  Straight from the horse's mouth:

 

Quote

 

What is Democratic Socialism?

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US.

 

Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?

Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.  

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.


Hasn’t socialism been discredited by the collapse of Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe?

Socialists have been among the harshest critics of authoritarian Communist states. Just because their bureaucratic elites called them “socialist” did not make it so; they also called their regimes “democratic.” Democratic socialists always opposed the ruling party-states of those societies, just as we oppose the ruling classes of capitalist societies. We applaud the democratic revolutions that have transformed the former Communist bloc. However, the improvement of people’s lives requires real democracy without ethnic rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism. Democratic socialists will continue to play a key role in that struggle throughout the world.

Moreover, the fall of Communism should not blind us to injustices at home. We cannot allow all radicalism to be dismissed as “Communist.” That suppression of dissent and diversity undermines America’s ability to live up to its promise of equality of opportunity, not to mention the freedoms of speech and assembly.


Private corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in the US, so why work towards socialism?

In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions to make private business more accountable.


Won’t socialism be impractical because people will lose their incentive to work?

We don’t agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society. Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy. For now, the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work.


Why are there no models of democratic socialism?

Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have won many victories for their people. We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs. Lastly, we can learn from efforts initiated right here in the US, such as the community health centers created by the government in the 1960s. They provided high quality family care, with community involvement in decision-making.


But hasn’t the European Social Democratic experiment failed?

Many northern European countries enjoy tremendous prosperity and relative economic equality thanks to the policies pursued by social democratic parties. These nations used their relative wealth to insure a high standard of living for their citizens—high wages, health care and subsidized education. Most importantly, social democratic parties supported strong labor movements that became central players in economic decision-making. But with the globalization of capitalism, the old social democratic model becomes ever harder to maintain. Stiff competition from low-wage labor markets in developing countries and the constant fear that industry will move to avoid taxes and strong labor regulations has diminished (but not eliminated) the ability of nations to launch ambitious economic reform on their own. Social democratic reform must now happen at the international level. Multinational corporations must be brought under democratic controls, and workers’ organizing efforts must reach across borders.

Now, more than ever, socialism is an international movement. As socialists have always known, the welfare of working people in Finland or California depends largely on standards in Italy or Indonesia. As a result, we must work towards reforms that can withstand the power of multinationals and global banks, and we must fight for a world order that is not controlled by bankers and bosses.


Aren’t you a party that’s in competition with the Democratic Party for votes and support?

No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The process and structure of American elections seriously hurts third party efforts. Winner-take-all elections instead of proportional representation, rigorous party qualification requirements that vary from state to state, a presidential instead of a parliamentary system, and the two-party monopoly on political power have doomed third party efforts. We hope that at some point in the future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats.


If I am going to devote time to politics, why shouldn’t I focus on something more immediate?

Although capitalism will be with us for a long time, reforms we win now—raising the minimum wage, securing a national health plan, and demanding passage of right-to-strike legislation—can bring us closer to socialism. Many democratic socialists actively work in the single-issue organizations that advocate for those reforms. We are visible in the reproductive freedom movement, the fight for student aid, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender organizations, anti-racist groups, and the labor movement.

It is precisely our socialist vision that informs and inspires our day-to-day activism for social justice. As socialists we bring a sense of the interdependence of all struggles for justice. No single-issue organization can truly challenge the capitalist system or adequately secure its particular demands. In fact, unless we are all collectively working to win a world without oppression, each fight for reforms will be disconnected, maybe even self-defeating.


What can young people do to move the US towards socialism?

Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, young people have played a critical role in American politics. They have been a tremendous force for both political and cultural change in this country: in limiting the US’s options in the war in Vietnam, in forcing corporations to divest from the racist South African regime, in reforming universities, and in bringing issues of sexual orientation and gender discrimination to public attention. Though none of these struggles were fought by young people alone, they all featured youth as leaders in multi-generational progressive coalitions. Young people are needed in today’s struggles as well: for universal health care and stronger unions, against welfare cuts and predatory multinational corporations.

Schools, colleges and universities are important to American political culture. They are the places where ideas are formulated and policy discussed and developed. Being an active part of that discussion is a critical job for young socialists. We have to work hard to change people’s misconceptions about socialism, to broaden political debate, and to overcome many students’ lack of interest in engaging in political action. Off-campus, too, in our daily cultural lives, young people can be turning the tide against racism, sexism and homophobia, as well as the conservative myth of the virtue of “free” markets.


If so many people misunderstand socialism, why continue to use the word?

First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/

The part about distributing the "undesirable" job among the many is the most laughable part of this screed.  So you would have to either force docs, lawyers, engineers, and airline pilots to go pick strawberries in the fields - or you would have to pay $100/hr to "incentivize" people to take those jobs.  I'm not sure many people are willing to pay $50 for a small box of strawberries at the local grocery store to support this pollyannaish utopian vision.  Just saying.  

And to answer their own question about "Why are there no models of democratic socialism?" is because every country that has tried it has failed and even countries like Sweden who have aspects of socialism embedded within their economy correctly realize that it might work on some programs, but is a non-starter as a basis for running the entire economy of a country.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

"Democratic socialism" is as much of a farce as communism or pure socialism is.  It's a pipe dream that requires unicorns to run the economy.  Straight from the horse's mouth:

 

The part about distributing the "undesirable" job among the many is the most laughable part of this screed.  So you would have to either force docs, lawyers, engineers, and airline pilots to go pick strawberries in the fields - or you would have to pay $100/hr to "incentivize" people to take those jobs.  I'm not sure many people are willing to pay $50 for a small box of strawberries at the local grocery store to support this pollyannaish utopian vision.  Just saying.  

And to answer their own question about "Why are there no models of democratic socialism?" is because every country that has tried it has failed and even countries like Sweden who have aspects of socialism embedded within their economy correctly realize that it might work on some programs, but is a non-starter as a basis for running the entire economy of a country.  

 

By that definition of democratic socialism, which purports to work towards pure socialism with ever-increasing collective ownership of the means of production, I think most of the so-called left aren't that either.  

I think most of the so-called left are looking for a model of capitalism which removes corporate influence over politics as much as possible and is more tightly regulated for social and environmental reasons, and in the meantime provides a solid social safety net.  In other words, more like what Canada is heading towards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

By that definition of democratic socialism, which purports to work towards pure socialism with ever-increasing collective ownership of the means of production, I think most of the so-called left aren't that either.  

I think most of the so-called left are looking for a model of capitalism which removes corporate influence over politics as much as possible and is more tightly regulated for social and environmental reasons, and in the meantime provides a solid social safety net.  In other words, more like what Canada is heading towards. 

I would not be totally adverse to working towards that latter idea.  But the point is that "democratic socialism" is just a fancy word for socialism.  It can't even get off the ground without massive state control, which they purport to be against.  

And it's why Bernie and his elk will never be more than a fringe candidate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, svitale said:

GOP Labor day.jpg

To be fair, in 1956 the entire industrialized world had been blown up with one notable exception, so it wasn't that hard to pay good wages when the competition had vanished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people have been led to believe socialism, communism, and Marxism are freely interchangeable terms.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mark K said:

A lot of people have been led to believe socialism, communism, and Marxism are freely interchangeable terms.  

No, of course they're not the same.  But Dem Socialism is essentially the precursor to pure socialism, which is a precursor to........  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I would not be totally adverse to working towards that latter idea.  But the point is that "democratic socialism" is just a fancy word for socialism.  It can't even get off the ground without massive state control, which they purport to be against.  

And it's why Bernie and his elk will never be more than a fringe candidate.  

Yep

How much of the covid bailout went to corporations and the wealthiest X% (5, 10, 20, whichever you feel)?

How come "socialist" programs like gov't funded research being turned into billion dollar products... hello, the internet... seems to be OK with all the socialism-haters?

The problem here is that people like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Hatred of SOCIALISM!! has been a big success for the hate-spew media, it used to be the hallmark of the screechier/stupider species of Bircher.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yep

How much of the covid bailout went to corporations and the wealthiest X% (5, 10, 20, whichever you feel)?

How come "socialist" programs like gov't funded research being turned into billion dollar products... hello, the internet... seems to be OK with all the socialism-haters?

The problem here is that people like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Hatred of SOCIALISM!! has been a big success for the hate-spew media, it used to be the hallmark of the screechier/stupider species of Bircher.

- DSK

You, like most, have fallen into the fallacy trap that individual socialist-esque programs = socialist systems.  Don't worry, you're in good company with being misguided on that subject.

And I don't hate socialist programs where it makes sense to socialize the execution and distribution of something to get a desired positive result.  An example would be single payer HC such as MFA.  Public Education is another good example of a socialized program.  But again, that is not the same as entire national systems of gov't such as what the Dem socialists espouse.  You DO see the difference, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

You, like most, have fallen into the fallacy trap that individual socialist-esque programs = socialist systems.  Don't worry, you're in good company with being misguided on that subject.

And I don't hate socialist programs where it makes sense to socialize the execution and distribution of something to get a desired positive result.  An example would be single payer HC such as MFA.  Public Education is another good example of a socialized program.  But again, that is not the same as entire national systems of gov't such as what the Dem socialists espouse.  You DO see the difference, right?

B-b-but you said that Dem-type socialistical programs were just a stepping stone to the real thing.

One of us is confused.

Personally I find socialist benefits for the wealthy to be unAmerican and morally questionable at best. The basic idea of socialism is fine. As with almost everything, the devil is in the details. I do not believe that SOCIALISM =EVIL BAD TERRIBLE VERY VERY BAD EVIL!!!! the way the rightie-spew bullshit machine portrays it... you have to be a special kind of mean-spirited pinhead to fall for that.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

No, of course they're not the same.  But Dem Socialism is essentially the precursor to pure socialism, which is a precursor to........  

Brain death... 

 medi.jpg?itok=FC-Qg8vI&c=b60ff72e546a742

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

B-b-but you said that Dem-type socialistical programs were just a stepping stone to the real thing.

No, as usual - you are RIF impaired.  I never once said socialist "programs" were a stepping stone.  I said democratic socialism itself - as in the system of DS as espoused on the DSA website link I posted- is a stepping stone to a pure socialist system.  

Honestly doug - you really should read people's posts and attempt to digest the content before your spring loaded fingers start typing your outrage......  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

No, as usual - you are RIF impaired.  I never once said socialist "programs" were a stepping stone.  I said democratic socialism itself - as in the system of DS as espoused on the DSA website link I posted- is a stepping stone to a pure socialist system.  

Honestly doug - you really should read people's posts and attempt to digest the content before your spring loaded fingers start typing your outrage......  Just saying.

Glad you clarified.

I still think you're a bit confused

Socialist programs are.... well, socialist. Is that evil, or isn't it?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

No, as usual - you are RIF impaired.  I never once said socialist "programs" were a stepping stone.  I said democratic socialism itself - as in the system of DS as espoused on the DSA website link I posted- is a stepping stone to a pure socialist system.  

Honestly doug - you really should read people's posts and attempt to digest the content before your spring loaded fingers start typing your outrage......  Just saying.

If you are going to keep writing about socialism it would help if you bothered to learn what it is.  And then provide the class with some real world examples.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Socialism is when the democRATS do something. Any idiot knows that. 

And if a woke democRAT does it then it becomes communism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

A lot of people have been led to believe socialism, communism, and Marxism are freely interchangeable terms.  

A lot of people have been led to believe that the military defense industrial complex is capitalist. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Step 1) Look in your wallet.

Step 2) See if there is a social security card.

Step 3) Congratulations! You are literally a card-carrying socialist.

Step 4) If you are anti-socialism, cut up your social security card and forget your number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

A lot of people have been led to believe socialism, communism, and Marxism are freely interchangeable terms.  

"Mislead" would more accurately describe it.  They don't want anyone to get the idea that everyone working to help each other might be good for all but the ruthless capitalists.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, everything being discussed is a product of culture.  There are many happy people living in Hutterite colonies.  Their sociology and economics are based on this culture.  That culture exists within both American and Canadian cultures. That is something that is to be commended.

Basically, Marxism says that, like the Cheshire Cat, economic drivers will get smaller in numbers and more and more powerful to the point they topple.  Marx wasn't much into revolution.  He did not have to be.  It is happening on a worldwide basis.  Many of the concepts of Oligopolies are now in place and their effect on the economies can be demonstrated. The position of old line car companies at the moment demonstrate this.

Lets start with the Tragedy of the Commons.  Boy, is it prevalent in the US.  Not so much in Sweden.  The Tragedy of the Commons is where a taxpayer is given the choice between paying 20% or 40% tax to fund a fire department.   Problem is that if everyone chooses 20%, the fire department does not get funded and does not happen.  One of the free market failures. People tend to do those things that they perceive to be in their best interest.  The Tragedy of the Commons is what makes it a socialist structure for the fire department to exist.

Let us look at car insurance.  A social necessity?  Definitely a social requirement in industrial society.  Car insurance product is the application of actuarial tables.  That does not change from company to company.  Given equal management ability and the discipline of a government to keep their hands out of the till, the private company has the burden of profit and will always be more expensive. An application of operating in ones best interest.  You can operate with a private entity to fulfil a public requirement, but it is economically not efficient. BTW, the most I have ever paid for car insurance was when I lived in California.  A huge chunk of that was underinsured motorist protection.

Let us look at the production of sealing wax.  Its use is not socially mandated.  There is no requirement for government oversight, because no body but senior management at the company probably has any idea what the market needs or wants and how to fulfil it.

We now have the elements of a mixed economy.  There are those that say the government should stay out of car insurance.  Their regulation is such that the government is in the business anyway.  There are some that say the government should be in the sealing wax industry.  The answer is probably somewhere in between with the biggest questions of how to deal with the Oligopolies.  (for jzk, it is a market failure of the price/demand equation when there are only a few players in any sector.  Think Apple/Google, Sobeys/Safeway, Coors/Budweiser.  Their price/demand curve gets stuck and they cant get out of it.  This has caused the death of many companies.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Laker said:

For some things to happen at all, one is a socialist.  A fire department does not happen at all unless there is a socialist structure.  I get upset when free market failures are not part of the school curriculum.

Markets are never completely free. Those in control of a market like to call it free so long as they're the ones controlling them. 
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Laker said:

First of all, everything being discussed is a product of culture.  There are many happy people living in Hutterite colonies.  Their sociology and economics are based on this culture.  That culture exists within both American and Canadian cultures. That is something that is to be commended.

Basically, Marxism says that, like the Cheshire Cat, economic drivers will get smaller in numbers and more and more powerful to the point they topple.  Marx wasn't much into revolution.  He did not have to be.  It is happening on a worldwide basis.  Many of the concepts of Oligopolies are now in place and their effect on the economies can be demonstrated. The position of old line car companies at the moment demonstrate this.

Lets start with the Tragedy of the Commons.  Boy, is it prevalent in the US.  Not so much in Sweden.  The Tragedy of the Commons is where a taxpayer is given the choice between paying 20% or 40% tax to fund a fire department.   Problem is that if everyone chooses 20%, the fire department does not get funded and does not happen.  One of the free market failures. People tend to do those things that they perceive to be in their best interest.  The Tragedy of the Commons is what makes it a socialist structure for the fire department to exist.

Let us look at car insurance.  A social necessity?  Definitely a social requirement in industrial society.  Car insurance product is the application of actuarial tables.  That does not change from company to company.  Given equal management ability and the discipline of a government to keep their hands out of the till, the private company has the burden of profit and will always be more expensive. An application of operating in ones best interest.  You can operate with a private entity to fulfil a public requirement, but it is economically not efficient. BTW, the most I have ever paid for car insurance was when I lived in California.  A huge chunk of that was underinsured motorist protection.

Let us look at the production of sealing wax.  Its use is not socially mandated.  There is no requirement for government oversight, because no body but senior management at the company probably has any idea what the market needs or wants and how to fulfil it.

We now have the elements of a mixed economy.  There are those that say the government should stay out of car insurance.  Their regulation is such that the government is in the business anyway.  There are some that say the government should be in the sealing wax industry.  The answer is probably somewhere in between with the biggest questions of how to deal with the Oligopolies.  (for jzk, it is a market failure of the price/demand equation when there are only a few players in any sector.  Think Apple/Google, Sobeys/Safeway, Coors/Budweiser.  Their price/demand curve gets stuck and they cant get out of it.  This has caused the death of many companies.)

Had to stay home alone on Thanksgiving didn't you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jules said:

"Mislead" would more accurately describe it.  They don't want anyone to get the idea that everyone working to help each other might be good for all but the ruthless capitalists.

I find it ironic that a bunch of people here claiming to be sailors find this concept difficult to understand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Glad you clarified.

I still think you're a bit confused

Socialist programs are.... well, socialist. Is that evil, or isn't it?

- DSK

Asked and answered. Have you discussed your accelerating signs of early onset Alzheimers?  If you haven’t done so already, you should so she can prepare herself as well as keep an eye on you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rain Man said:

That video confuses democratic socialism with pure socialism - government ownership of the means of production - by lumping both under the term "socialism".   I don't think it is particularly helpful.

Agreed. And I'm not particularly impressed with the hijacking of the word in the video. If the presenter want's to talk about Democratic socialism, he needs to be clearer. Stealing socialist doctrine (From each according to their ability) to make a point, simply confuses the average American again. 

I did like the Potluck analogy. 

Thank's AJ, I think I've known I'm a Democratic Socialist since I outgrew my Communist phase :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, d'ranger said:

If you are going to keep writing about socialism it would help if you bothered to learn what it is.  And then provide the class with some real world examples.

 

The Democratic Socialists of America is not a good example of what democratic socialism is????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

The Democratic Socialists of America is not a good example of what democratic socialism is????

Are right wing christians a good example of Jesus's teaching?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

The Democratic Socialists of America is not a good example of what democratic socialism is????

:smoke:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, you are reading is sideways. Or worse you are doing exactly what you sob and cry about us doing: misquoting.

[DS is] a pipe dream that requires unicorns to run the economy. 

The word 'unicorns' never appears in the text you quoted. Not even a hint of magic being required. 

The part about distributing the "undesirable" job among the many is the most laughable part of this screed.  So you would have to either force docs, lawyers, engineers, and airline pilots to go pick strawberries in the fields - or you would have to pay $100/hr to "incentivize" people to take those jobs.  I'm not sure many people are willing to pay $50 for a small box of strawberries at the local grocery store to support this pollyannaish utopian vision.  Just saying.  

Just saying...capitalism has failed to solve this problem since Steinbeck wrote Grapes of Wrath. You arithmetic might be a bit off with the price of strawberries. Is it a basic human right to have $3 baskets of strawberries, would $4 be an indication of a failed economic system?

And to answer their own question about "Why are there no models of democratic socialism?"

They did not ask that question. You don't understand the writing style. The go on to say, correctly, that much of the SD system is successful and proven.

... is because every country that has tried it has failed

Got a cite for that false claim?

...even countries like Sweden who have aspects of socialism embedded within their economy correctly realize that it might work on some programs, but is a non-starter as a basis for running the entire economy of a country. 

It has been made abundantly by most proponents of SD that your beloved answer to every ill, laissze faire capitalism, would not be entirely discarded. To construct your strawman is silly. The inanity of it drags out the thread.

The Democratic Socialists of America is not a good example of what democratic socialism is?

The are a good example. They express an aggressive platform comparable to, say, ACU/CPAC, or whoever is a stepping stone to fascism.

 I said democratic socialism itself - as in the system of DS as espoused on the DSA website link I posted- is a stepping stone to a pure socialist system.

Yup. I suppose even Biden is a stepping stone. Trump and FOX thinks so. Quite a few long steps for the USA to get anywhere near socialism. But far more than going the other way to fascism as we have discovered.

But the point is that "democratic socialism" is just a fancy word for socialism.  It can't even get off the ground without massive state control, which they purport to be against. 

The USA already has "massive state control" in many areas. Surprisingly that mass is in the military, prisons, law enforcement, spying, homeland security, agriculture and related corporate welfare programs. All darlings of your small neofascist faction. Compare those to the remarkably efficient administration (by any measure) of the SSA, ACA and Medicare.

Dude: Start over. Try again...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailors understand the ideal economic system.  Some poor bastard CEO (skipper/owner) runs the company (boat), and is subject to a whole lot of rules (RRS) and red tape (NOR and regatta entry, delivery logistics).  Meanwhile, he or she is absolutely fucked without the employees (crew) who are just as likely to not show up for work (the race) as they are to appear.  If the employees (crew) are treated poorly, they quit and go work (sail) for another company (boat).  So, the CEO is careful to keep the employees happy (buy beer and snacks for the crew) to make sure the business (race) is a success.  At the end of the day, the long-suffering CEO (skipper/owner) gets a financial reward (trophy) if the company is successful (the boat wins).

We have this a bit out of balance at the moment.  Some kind of socialized (carefully avoiding the charged term socialism here) system is better than unfettered capitalism.  To @Burning Man , who complains that no example of a working socialist system exists, I would ask him to find an example of a working free-market capitalist system.  By working, I mean there are no poor people, no people without health care and access to education, economic opportunity is provided regardless of privilege, and economic disparity is kept to a minimum. 

The truth is that neither work.  So we need to find a balance between a socialized system and regulated capitalism.  There are some countries doing very well at striking this balance.  I would argue that the USA is not one of them.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

Sailors understand the ideal economic system.  Some poor bastard CEO (skipper/owner) runs the company (boat), and is subject to a whole lot of rules (RRS) and red tape (NOR and regatta entry, delivery logistics).  Meanwhile, he or she is absolutely fucked without the employees (crew) who are just as likely to not show up for work (the race) as they are to appear.  If the employees (crew) are treated poorly, they quit and go work (sail) for another company (boat).  So, the CEO is careful to keep the employees happy (buy beer and snacks for the crew) to make sure the business (race) is a success.  At the end of the day, the long-suffering CEO (skipper/owner) gets a financial reward (trophy) if the company is successful (the boat wins).

We have this a bit out of balance at the moment.  Some kind of socialized (carefully avoiding the charged term socialism here) system is better than unfettered capitalism.  To @Burning Man , who complains that no example of a working socialist system exists, I would ask him to find an example of a working free-market capitalist system.  By working, I mean there are no poor people, no people without health care and access to education, economic opportunity is provided regardless of privilege, and economic disparity is kept to a minimum. 

The truth is that neither work.  So we need to find a balance between a socialized system and regulated capitalism.  There are some countries doing very well at striking this balance.  I would argue that the USA is not one of them.

You forgot to mention the CEO's tax benefit in running the company (boat) at a loss....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

The Democratic Socialists of America is not a good example of what democratic socialism is????

No it isn't.

If you watched the Vid in the OP, the presenter points out that the difference.

DSA are trying to work within the Democratic Party. The Vid points out that this is half arsed appeasement "socialism" (My words :D )

To get a little bit of "socialism" for some, that does not address the material needs of the many. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

The Democratic Socialists of America is not a good example of what democratic socialism is????

No it isn't.

If you watched the Vid in the OP, the presenter points out that the difference.wealthiest

DSA are trying to work within the Democratic Party. The Vid points out that this is half arsed appeasement "socialism" (My words :D )

To get a little bit of "socialism" for some, that does not address the material needs of the many. 

The incredibly evil socialistical Democratic Communists of America are trying to reduce the USA's socialist system that benefits the wealthiest.

The upper 0.1%'s lobbyists have constructed a system whereby they get the best of everything, increasingly so, and everyone else gets fucked. The fact that the advertising campaign to convince Trumpalos and their elk has worked fantastically... Moscow Mitch gets government health care and loves it. He doesn't want citizens to get a whiff of it.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, svitale said:

GOP Labor day.jpg

Buncha commies - not even RINO's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rain Man said:
7 hours ago, Burning Man said:

"Democratic socialism" is as much of a farce as communism or pure socialism is.  It's a pipe dream that requires unicorns to run the economy.  Straight from the horse's ass

By that definition of democratic socialism, which purports to work towards pure socialism with ever-increasing collective ownership of the means of production, I think most of the so-called left aren't that either.  

I think most of the so-called left are looking for a model of capitalism which removes corporate influence over politics as much as possible and is more tightly regulated for social and environmental reasons, and in the meantime provides a solid social safety net.  In other words, more like what Canada is

The Merc is so fucking dim he never heard of Germany or Scandinavia or Canada or...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

This is actually pretty well done . .  

I guess I am . . 

 

You are fertile ground, AJ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Thank's AJ, I think I've known I'm a Democratic Socialist since I outgrew my Communist phase :)

Heh, and I have been a socialist since I outgrew my black flag anarchist phase - when I left the military I was an angry young dude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

DSA are trying to work within the Democratic Party. The Vid points out that this is half arsed appeasement "socialism" (My words :D )

This is a recurring debate in progressive circles - not just DSA. 

There are huge legal and structural barriers to third parties in the US . . 

In my view, Bernie and AOC & others have shown that boring from within the corporatist Dem party is the way to go . . 

(As opposed to being merely just plain boring) 

Seriously, if they had run as third party insurgents, no one would even have heard of them. 

At the grass roots, there are a LOT of progressives in the Dem Party. 

Who ever would have heard of the Tea Party if they had been third party purists ?  

Nobody. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Burning Man said:

And I don't hate socialist programs where it makes sense to socialize the execution and distribution of something to get a desired positive result.  An example would be single payer HC such as MFA.  Public Education is another good example of a socialized program.  But again, that is not the same as entire national systems of gov't such as what the Dem socialists espouse.  You DO see the difference, right?

That is exactly what socialists espouse - doing things collectively ONLY where it makes sense 

Fire Depts, water/sewer, education, health care (financing, not delivery) - and more. 

In the actual real world, every economy on the planet is a MIXED ECONOMY - partly private and partly collective, depending on what works. 

Both Cuba and North Korea have private capitalist economic sectors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Burning Man said:

  I said democratic socialism itself - as in the system of DS as espoused on the DSA website link I posted- is a stepping stone to a pure socialist system.  

For the better part of a century now, our corporate overlords have worked overtime to beat the dead horse . . 

that any common social programs would put us on "The Road to Serfdom" (that is a book), and totalitarian tyranny. 

They said it in the 1930's (social security, child labor laws, Min wage); in the 1960's (Medicare), and on and on . . 

You have to be pretty stupid to keep falling for that same old scare tactic. 

And if you think about it, Canadians, because they have very little fear of going bankrupt due to a personal medical problem . . 

are more free than we USAeans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

This is a recurring debate in progressive circles - not just DSA. 

There are huge legal and structural barriers to third parties in the US . . 

In my view, Bernie and AOC & others have shown that boring from within the corporatist Dem party is the way to go . . 

(As opposed to being merely just plain boring) 

Seriously, if they had run as third party insurgents, no one would even have heard of them. 

At the grass roots, there are a LOT of progressives in the Dem Party. 

Who ever would have heard of the Tea Party if they had been third party purists ?  

Nobody. 

"Well you never know if you don't have a go"

Yeah, joking.

Your "winner takes all" system pretty well fucks up any chance of minor parties getting a toe hold nationally. 

Y'all need a cunning plan.

2 hours ago, Venom said:

You are fertile ground, AJ. 

For what?

Being brainwashed by the reds under the bed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

:rolleyes: mirror mirror on the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shortforbob said:

For what?

Soap_KarlMarx_v02.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Venom said:

You are fertile ground, AJ. 

presented with your usual acumen . .  which is to say, none. 

Ever thought about watching the vid and commenting sagely ? 

Or even reading a book ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

presented with your usual acumen . .  which is to say, none. 

Ever thought about watching the vid and commenting sagely ? 

Or even reading a book ? 

giphy.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

 

Triggered big time. :D

 

Really, are you sure?  

A picture is worth a thousand words and it was you after all who asked the silly question. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Venom said:

Really, are you sure?  

A picture is worth a thousand words and it was you after all who asked the silly question. :D 

you righties of "a certain type" have not changed your lines since I was in high school.

 

 

and that was a very long time ago.

Two bob capitalists :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Venom said:

giphy.gif

 

You're reading Das Kapital? Oh well done. I'd rather read Moby Dick.

 

 

 

Twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shortforbob said:

you righties of "a certain type" have not changed your lines since I was in high school.

and that was a very long time ago.

Two bob capitalists :D

I always considered myself a liberal. <_<

What's you definition of "rightie"? 

1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

You're reading Das Kapital? Oh well done. I'd rather read Moby Dick.

Try 1984 if you'd like to see the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hard On The Wind said:

Had to stay home alone on Thanksgiving didn't you.

Not my Thanksgiving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Venom said:

Try 1984 if you'd like to see the future. 

You know durn well you never read it . . 

give us a plot summary, will ya? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Venom said:

I always considered myself a liberal. <_<

What's you definition of "rightie"? 

Try 1984 if you'd like to see the future. 

Yeah, probably. Small or large "L" ?:rolleyes:

AKA "feel good conservativism"

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Yellow is the political colour most commonly associated with liberalism.[11][12][13]

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free trade and free markets.[14] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, based on the social contract, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and governments must not violate these rights.[15] While the British liberal tradition has emphasized expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasized rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[16]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of a successful socialistic economic unit..how about the Hutterites?  They aren't Unicorns.  I doubt that the majority of us could live with sex differentiated dorms, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laker said:

In terms of a successful socialistic economic unit..how about the Hutterites?  They aren't Unicorns.  I doubt that the majority of us could live with sex differentiated dorms.

Hutterites? Wouldn't one love to turn the domestic and sexual abuse microscope on all those "'ites"<_< 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Hutterites? Wouldn't one love to turn the domestic and sexual abuse microscope on all those "'ites"<_< 

You may have your sects a bit mixed up.  It is a different culture definitely. I think it a bit of a stretch to call it abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Laker said:

You may have your sects a bit mixed up.  It is a different culture definitely. I think it a bit of a stretch to call it abuse.

I don't.

Show me any society where men hold all the power and  families get "shunned" and that are "closed" in nature, where there isn't entrenched secretive sexual and domestic abuse and I'll find you that Unicorn of Jeffs.

 

But we digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marxist theory derives from first principles.  Can you point out the issues in his logic?  Present Republican policy certainly plays into fulfilling his main premise.  Economic sectors get so big and concentrated that oligopolies are created, become constrained due to operating as an oligopoly and ultimately crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe a free market will serve the public best, but if, and only if, monopolies (or de-facto monoploies) are not allowed to form, and is split up with brute force when they occur.
That is the major problem of capitalism in the west, which has escalated in the last 30ish years. It is like no one talks about a governments right (and duty) to come down hard on companies getting too big anymore.

On the tech side,  a handful of companies can now dictacte technological development, what is allowed to be said in public (social media) and much more.

I see the same in many other areas of business, where ownership is consolidated, and it does not do any good to anyone, execept the few owners. I think this is also part of why such a large amount of the money in the world is held on so few hands.

So, the free market works, but only if it free. It's not if very few people actually controls it.

/Rant over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does everything have to fix in a box, 

I feel a healthy people/society are a little bit of everything,

interesting enough, a good corporation is run by healthy workers!

going back to the teachings of Christ, he feed the hungry , healed the sick , so is Christianity socialisms? , 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jules said:

Maybe "Socialist" needs to be more simply defined as "Greed is not good."

Sounds reasonable enough. Now sell that yacht and waterfront home, buy a modest trailer inland, and donate all the proceeds of your previous greed to charity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Sounds reasonable enough. Now sell that yacht and waterfront home, buy a modest trailer inland, and donate all the proceeds of your previous greed to charity.

I'm very disappointed in you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Not for nothing said:

Why does everything have to fix in a box, 

I feel a healthy people/society are a little bit of everything,

interesting enough, a good corporation is run by healthy workers!

going back to the teachings of Christ, he feed the hungry , healed the sick , so is Christianity socialisms? , 

Christianity socialist?

What does Christianity have to do with seditious radical, that preached Islam before Mohamed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the "ism" is about a system of production.

 

the abuse of that "ism" for profit is a human corruption.

 

 

take out the obscene price gouging the we have to deal with now and most of the problems of capitalism go away

.

of course doing that might just make the effects of capitalism a bit more like the effects of socialism....

 

 

iow, who controls the system of production is probably irrelevant, its more about who benefits from the efficiencies created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vid's point about the leftist concept of workplace democracy being superior is a good one . .  

with lots of research that supports it . .  

So why don't we have more of it? It's because of the class struggle that we are losing at the present time. 

Wiki - workplace democracy 

 A report on democratic workplaces in the USA found that they can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses and have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates and a 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having worked as union member for over three decades. Here's my experience of that microcosm of a socialist (union) vs capitalist (contractors) environment.

I worked for some of the largest electrical contractors in the Chicago area.  And some small ones, too.  10 of my 35 years in the trade I worked as a project manager.  I knew the cost, overhead and profits for all my jobs and talked to other PMs as to how their jobs were doing..  From everything I saw, there was no indication of any contractor I PMed for struggling to make ends meet.  This, while paying their employees a good wage, providing good health care, vacation pay and a comfortable retirement (including healthcare into retirement).

What you didn't see in this environment was any person making millions or anyone unable to provide food, clothing and shelter for their families.  During slow times, the union provided benefits for members out of work.  And my local never had a strike.  We relied on reasonable people sitting at the negotiation table.  It worked well for all because we all worked together to make sure everyone was taken care of.

My SOs son went to work for a small non-union contractor.  They built maybe 20 houses a year.  They paid their workers less than half the going union rates.  The workers never asked for a raise (not even cost of living) because they were afraid they would be fired.  They never complained about unsafe working conditions for the same reason.  Some of the safety issues my SO's son told me about bordered on deadly. (he later got into the carpenter's union)  And they provided no healthcare or other benefits.  But the owners were making millions and often showed up on the job driving their latest Ferrari or Porsche.

I've seen compromise work very well for all.  But it doesn't create ultra-rich individuals.  Nor should it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, El Boracho said:

Dude, you are reading is sideways.

???  English, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rain Man said:

We have this a bit out of balance at the moment.  Some kind of socialized (carefully avoiding the charged term socialism here) system is better than unfettered capitalism.  To @Burning Man , who complains that no example of a working socialist system exists, I would ask him to find an example of a working free-market capitalist system.  By working, I mean there are no poor people, no people without health care and access to education, economic opportunity is provided regardless of privilege, and economic disparity is kept to a minimum. 

I don't know anywhere where capitalism has been advertised as able to provide perfect outcomes such that there are no poor people, no people without HC, education, etc.  Capitalism is about "opportunity", not outcomes.  If one does not take advantage of the opportunities that exist, then that is on them - not capitalism itself.  Socialism otoh is about outcomes.  If the gov't does A, B & C - then D, E, and F outcomes will happen.  

And finally, I am not and never have been a pure "unregulated, free market capitalist".  That's another pipe dream that requires unicorns to manage it properly.  As soon as a "free markets" meet human nature - the whole system gets fucked.  Greed ALWAYS takes over.  So markets must be regulated to keep human nature from running rampant.  

Socialism is the same.  On paper, it seems like a great idea.  But as soon as human nature takes over, it's fucked.  On very small scales like little farm co-ops and such - sure, the worst parts of human nature can be kept in check.  As soon as it gets to a gov't wide level - the ability to squash human nature becomes much more difficult.  No economic or social system is perfect - but overall regulated capitalism has a much much much better proven track record than socialism ever could hope to have.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Moscow Mitch gets government health care and loves it. He doesn't want citizens to get a whiff of it.

Don't be like everyone else here and confuse "Gov't RUN health care" with "gov't PAID for health insurance".  Bitch mcconnell likely gets gov't "PAID FOR" health insurance.  Same as me.  I go to public doctors and clinics just like everyone else.  Most of the tab is picked up by the gov't (via my military retirement benefits).  However, It's not totally free to me.  I still pay an annual premium as well as co-pays.  I'm sure mitch also goes to normal docs and care facilities as well, unless he is exclusively using military hospitals, which is very possible given he's in DC.   Or the senate has some on site docs and clinics.  

I think the terms here are important and it's not simply pedantics.  Gov't HC (as in Gov't RUN) implies the gov't is actually running and managing the day to day affairs of the hospital or clinic, and the staff of docs, nurses and such salaries are paid directly by the gov't.  Gov't PAID FOR HC is obviously a system whereby the gov't reimbuses private facilities and pays the costs of the HC provided to the patient such as Medicare.  The Gov't does not run the hospitals directly.

I do not think we want to be in the business of the gov't RUNNING hospitals and directly managing care.  But I have no issues with gov't MANAGING the costs and payments of HC to the providers who do the actual delivery of care.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SloopJonB said:
23 hours ago, Rain Man said:

By that definition of democratic socialism, which purports to work towards pure socialism with ever-increasing collective ownership of the means of production, I think most of the so-called left aren't that either.  

I think most of the so-called left are looking for a model of capitalism which removes corporate influence over politics as much as possible and is more tightly regulated for social and environmental reasons, and in the meantime provides a solid social safety net.  In other words, more like what Canada is

The Merc is so fucking dim he never heard of Germany or Scandinavia or Canada or...

Fuck off!  You, like most here, have no fucking clue what I believe or think and as soon as you see my name mentioned, you've already formed your own version of what you assume I must believe.

I have repeatedly and loudly, for years now in PA, called for major reforms in our HC delivery as well as cost structure.  I have most often used Germany as the model I would prefer - with a very tightly regulated private insurance system.  But I have also said I am not opposed to a single-payer/MFA type of structure.  The path we are on now is simply unsustainable.  I think that a German style structure is far more doable and palatable to the 'Murican public than is a full single payer model in the US.  The latter is just a bridge too far, imho.  

The reason I was and still am opposed to obocare is because 1) it does very little to nothing to address the skyrocketing costs of HC.  And 2) because it entrenches the employer-based health insurance model.  I have constantly and consistently said that business and corporations needs to get out of the HC game completely.  Let them concentrate on their business.  Health insurance should be more like buying car insurance.  You can shop around for it, take it with you when you move, it's cheap and prices are reasonable because of competition.  None of that is possible with employer based HI.  

So just fucking knock it off finally with all you cunts assuming you know what I think and believe in.  You're likely completely wrong.  If you're unsure, just ask me.  I'll give you a straight answer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I don't know anywhere where capitalism has been advertised as able to provide perfect outcomes such that there are no poor people, no people without HC, education, etc.  Capitalism is about "opportunity", not outcomes.  If one does not take advantage of the opportunities that exist, then that is on them - not capitalism itself.  Socialism otoh is about outcomes.  If the gov't does A, B & C - then D, E, and F outcomes will happen.  

And finally, I am not and never have been a pure "unregulated, free market capitalist".  That's another pipe dream that requires unicorns to manage it properly.  As soon as a "free markets" meet human nature - the whole system gets fucked.  Greed ALWAYS takes over.  So markets must be regulated to keep human nature from running rampant.  

Socialism is the same.  On paper, it seems like a great idea.  But as soon as human nature takes over, it's fucked.  On very small scales like little farm co-ops and such - sure, the worst parts of human nature can be kept in check.  As soon as it gets to a gov't wide level - the ability to squash human nature becomes much more difficult.  No economic or social system is perfect - but overall regulated capitalism has a much much much better proven track record than socialism ever could hope to have.  

Well, it is settled then.  Well regulated capitalism with a strong social safety net.  You're presumably voting for Democrats?  It seems like Republicans have no interest in a social safety net because freedumb.

All the attempts at pure socialism with a few notable outliers have evolved into some kind of market economy.  Sadly, many abandoned the social safety net at the same time.  Hopefully they will evolve back to that in time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

Well, it is settled then.  Well regulated capitalism with a strong social safety net.  You're presumably voting for Democrats then?  It seems like Republicans have no interest in a social safety net because freedumb.

Yes and yes.  What...... Are you new here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Don't be like everyone else here and confuse "Gov't RUN health care" with "gov't PAID for health insurance".  Bitch mcconnell likely gets gov't "PAID FOR" health insurance.  Same as me.  I go to public doctors and clinics just like everyone else.  Most of the tab is picked up by the gov't (via my military retirement benefits).  However, It's not totally free to me.  I still pay an annual premium as well as co-pays.  I'm sure mitch also goes to normal docs and care facilities as well, unless he is exclusively using military hospitals, which is very possible given he's in DC.   Or the senate has some on site docs and clinics.  

I think the terms here are important and it's not simply pedantics.  Gov't HC (as in Gov't RUN) implies the gov't is actually running and managing the day to day affairs of the hospital or clinic, and the staff of docs, nurses and such salaries are paid directly by the gov't.  Gov't PAID FOR HC is obviously a system whereby the gov't reimbuses private facilities and pays the costs of the HC provided to the patient such as Medicare.  The Gov't does not run the hospitals directly.

I do not think we want to be in the business of the gov't RUNNING hospitals and directly managing care.  But I have no issues with gov't MANAGING the costs and payments of HC to the providers who do the actual delivery of care.  

Why not? It works well here. Leaving it in private hands is a recipe for expensive and underperforming health care, since there is a profit motive from the get-go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

???  English, please.

Dude you are read it sideways.

Or: Dude you're reading is sideways..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jules said:

Having worked as union member for over three decades. Here's my experience of that microcosm of a socialist (union) vs capitalist (contractors) environment.

I worked for some of the largest electrical contractors in the Chicago area.  And some small ones, too.  10 of my 35 years in the trade I worked as a project manager.  I knew the cost, overhead and profits for all my jobs and talked to other PMs as to how their jobs were doing..  From everything I saw, there was no indication of any contractor I PMed for struggling to make ends meet.  This, while paying their employees a good wage, providing good health care, vacation pay and a comfortable retirement (including healthcare into retirement).

What you didn't see in this environment was any person making millions or anyone unable to provide food, clothing and shelter for their families.  During slow times, the union provided benefits for members out of work.  And my local never had a strike.  We relied on reasonable people sitting at the negotiation table.  It worked well for all because we all worked together to make sure everyone was taken care of.

My SOs son went to work for a small non-union contractor.  They built maybe 20 houses a year.  They paid their workers less than half the going union rates.  The workers never asked for a raise (not even cost of living) because they were afraid they would be fired.  They never complained about unsafe working conditions for the same reason.  Some of the safety issues my SO's son told me about bordered on deadly. (he later got into the carpenter's union)  And they provided no healthcare or other benefits.  But the owners were making millions and often showed up on the job driving their latest Ferrari or Porsche.

I've seen compromise work very well for all.  But it doesn't create ultra-rich individuals.  Nor should it. 

^ this ^

In general, I am anti-union. But I never had kids to feed, either, and pretty much lucked into a skill set that if a boss I had turned out to be an asshole, I could just fuckin' quit and have another better-paying job before the end of the week. I did see a bit of union-protected jobs leading to busted job contracts and real slackness... dunno how much of that was common elsewhere so I'm not saying how common it is or isn't.

Workplace safety is a biggie, and Republican dogma going back to at least Nixon is anti-workplace-safety. Workers are expendable, fuck ' em.

The confrontational attitude that is somewhat inherent in American culture means that a lot of business principles figure that they're not WINNING! unless their employees are losing.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Socialism is the same.  On paper, it seems like a great idea.  But as soon as human nature takes over, it's fucked.  On very small scales like little farm co-ops and such - sure, the worst parts of human nature can be kept in check.  As soon as it gets to a gov't wide level - the ability to squash human nature becomes much more difficult.  No economic or social system is perfect - but overall regulated capitalism has a much much much better proven track record than socialism ever could hope to have.  

Capitalism is the same.  On paper, it seems like a great idea.  But as soon as human nature takes over, it's fucked.  On very small scales like little farm co-ops and such - sure, the worst parts of human nature can be kept in check.  As soon as it gets to a gov't wide level - the ability to squash human nature becomes much more difficult.  No economic or social system is perfect - but overall regulated socialism has a much much much better proven track record than capitalism ever could hope to have.

Depends if one's goals are to encourage greed vs. generosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

I do not think we want to be in the business of the gov't RUNNING hospitals and directly managing care.  But I have no issues with gov't MANAGING the costs and payments of HC to the providers who do the actual delivery of care.  

Why not? It works well here. Leaving it in private hands is a recipe for expensive and underperforming health care, since there is a profit motive from the get-go.

So the Canadian gov't directly runs the hospitals and the docs and nurses are salaried gov't employees?  I honestly didn't know that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites