Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

[danielpalos]

. . . and incidentally, we will continue to have failures, recessions, depressions and corruption until we get rid of the FED.

why do you say that?

 

[danielpalos]

I thought the democrats had a democrat platform not a platform for every district.

Ha! As you know well, Democrats have a different platform for every minority group. For Democrats, a platform is synonymous with pandering.

they used to have a Party platform.

 

[francoHFW]

The question is the scope of the governing body's power. The Democratic Socialists say that government should run society. (and the economy, but that seems to be encompassed by "society").

Again, that is not a fair characterization of their beliefs.

It's their own words. How is it not a fair characterization of their beliefs? Are you saying the are sabotaging themselves? Deliberately misleading???

Democratic socialists believe in a well regulated Society. The bastion of democracy can relax socialism is not communism. Ask any socialist in any modern country like Bernie Sanders and OAC and most of the democratic
Party, basically anyone who would like a health system in this country is a socialist.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

. . . and incidentally, we will continue to have failures, recessions, depressions and corruption until we get rid of the FED.

We had all of those things before the Fed, why would they disappear if the Fed went away?

 

[Richard-H]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”

Worker coops are an intriguing idea. However, they do not provide for the initial investment that gets businesses started. Nor do they provide for wages and salaries when the business are running in the red.

A better idea is to switch to mandatory profit sharing. Employees would share the risk AND share the profits. Employees would, in time, become sort of partners.

 

[dblack]

Democratic socialists believe in a well regulated Society it snow. The bastion of democracy can relax socialism is not communism. Ask any socialist in any modern country like Bernie Sanders and OAC and most of the democratic
Party, basically anyone who would like a health system in this country is a socialist.

I wasn't able to parse all of that, but Democratic Socialists want government to control society. I don't. I oppose them for that reason alone.

 

[francoHFW]

Democratic socialists believe in a well regulated Society it snow. The bastion of democracy can relax socialism is not communism. Ask any socialist in any modern country like Bernie Sanders and OAC and most of the democratic
Party, basically anyone who would like a health system in this country is a socialist.

I wasn't able to parse all of that, but Democratic Socialists want government to control society. I don't. I oppose them on that reason alone.

let's say that they know that the government does control Society no matter what, and after 35 years of the line brainwashing, disastrous GOP, we have the worst inequality, upward mobility, and propaganda ever.and I have never heard a socialist talking about having control of society anyway. Stop being the dupe of greedy idiot swine.

 

[francoHFW]

. . . and incidentally, we will continue to have failures, recessions, depressions and corruption until we get rid of the FED.

We had all of those things before the Fed, why would they disappear if the Fed went away?

And considering that those things only happen under Republicans, why do you idiots keep voting for them, as if I didn't know, brainwashed functional morons.....

 

[francoHFW]

If you want my opinion as to which economic institution needs to be democratically controlled by we the people, I would say the bank.

Do you mean "controlled by the people", or "controlled by the government"? They're not the same thing.

I said controlled by we the people. That is what I meant.

Our government is an institution that operates at the behest of the ruling class. The idea is to take it back.

There is no ruling class at least in one party. Representative democracy is a republic and I believe especially after 250 years. The pure crap GOP propaganda machine is one of its worst challenges ever- half of you people are nuts...

Of course there is a ruling class. Take off the blinders.

but half of them are greedy idiot Republicans with crap propaganda and half are Democrats with Solutions and facts.

 

[francoHFW]

Do you mean "controlled by the people", or "controlled by the government"? They're not the same thing.

I said controlled by we the people. That is what I meant.

Yes. And what DID you mean? I assume you meant, "controlled by a majority of the people via government". If you didn't, please elaborate (but kindly avoid all the marxist equivocation).

Yes, there would have to be a governing body. Not necessarily on a national scale.

The question is the scope of the governing body's power. The Democratic Socialists say that government should run society. (and the economy, but that seems to be encompassed by "society").

We have a Constitution, troll.

Thank you God for the Constitution. The GOP always screwing with it. Like reconciliation the present filibuster rule and now perhaps the worst of all the and run around Congress.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

. . . and incidentally, we will continue to have failures, recessions, depressions and corruption until we get rid of the FED.

We had all of those things before the Fed, why would they disappear if the Fed went away?

And considering that those things only happen under Republicans, why do you idiots keep voting for them, as if I didn't know, brainwashed functional morons.....

Why are you such a stupid twat?

 

[dblack]

I wasn't able to parse all of that, but Democratic Socialists want government to control society. I don't. I oppose them on that reason alone.

let's say that they know that the government does control Society no matter what

Then I'd say that they are wrong. And if government did have that much power, I'd say it's time for a revolution.

 

[francoHFW]

I wasn't able to parse all of that, but Democratic Socialists want government to control society. I don't. I oppose them on that reason alone.

let's say that they know that the government does control Society no matter what

Then I'd say that they are wrong. And if government did have that much power, I'd say it's time for a revolution.

I don't even know what you're talkin about. The Constitution holds, what the hell is wrong with you. Even in a socialist United States, and to be barely socialist, all we need is Healthcare. The place can stay a ripoff of the non Rich by the rich and the silly dupes. You are a tool of theft by the ruling class, the GOP ruling class...

 

[francoHFW]

I wasn't able to parse all of that, but Democratic Socialists want government to control society. I don't. I oppose them on that reason alone.

let's say that they know that the government does control Society no matter what

Then I'd say that they are wrong. And if government did have that much power, I'd say it's time for a revolution.

The government controlling Society is such a general term it is meaningless... Bernie Sanders is no Stalin.

 

[WheelieAddict]

I'm a big fan of capitalism, but think it has to be regulated. Guess that makes me a commie

It all depends on what you mean by regulated. The term is the target of relentless equivocations. The government has a responsibility to make sure no one, business owner, consumer, or otherwise, is lying, cheating or stealing with regard to business transactions. But some people want government dictating wages, prices, practices - in the name of the public good. That's the kind of regulation libertarians and conservatives oppose.

Well oversight is needed, that's all I'm saying. There is no perfect system, never will be. Capitalism is the best so far so lets embrace it but regulate it. I agree with you about how regulations can run amok and be abused. An unfortunate reality of the human condition. Rules will always be abused but at the very least we need some.

 

[Dragonlady]

So your argument is a picture of a book you never read which is probably Rockefeller or Carnegie propaganda
. Congratulations.

I've read both it and the sources cited in its end notes.

But you feel free to move the fuck to Cuba, tovarich.

And another Russian outs himself.

 

[the other mike]

If you're not a socialist does it mean you're antisocial ?

 

[the other mike]

And another Russian outs himself.

Whatever you say twisted sister.

 

[dblack]

I don't even know what you're talkin about. The Constitution holds, what the hell is wrong with you. Even in a socialist United States, and to be barely socialist, all we need is Healthcare.

Really? Just healthcare? What about food? Housing? Clothing? Internet access? Cell phones?

 

[MisterBeale]

. . . and incidentally, we will continue to have failures, recessions, depressions and corruption until we get rid of the FED.

We had all of those things before the Fed, why would they disappear if the Fed went away?

I'm not saying they would. However, the point, is that it should not work in concert with the political parties to choose winners and losers. It is an abomination. To you? As you personally benefit. I have no doubt you believe it is just fine.


What I am saying is that these events are more severe. The only folks that are benefiting are the wealthy, and the powerful.

The game is rigged. Everyone would be better off to let markets be free.