Sanders planning "Major Speech" on democratic socialism

[Weatherman2020]

Good, this should be interesting. I strongly suspect a clear delineation between democratic socialism and pure socialism to help clarify the national conversation:

Sanders planning ‘major speech’ on democratic socialism, he tells Iowa supporters

He does try here: What is a democratic socialist? Bernie Sanders tries to redefine the name.

“What democratic socialism means to me,” Sanders said during a recent speech in New Hampshire, “is having a government which represents all people, rather than just the wealthiest people, which is most often the case right now in this country.”

What that doesn't cover is control over ownership and means of distribution. I guess we'll see.
.

All those other socialist governments failed because they just didn't do it right. But I know how it should be done.
You watch.

 

[Conservative65]

I've been successful following the personal responsibility system I practice. Why would I get out of something that has provided great success for me?

That's the problem with many people who are doing well. They don't care about anyone else. Hey, we are all in the same boat; it's called Earth.

Yet you think those who you expect us to support actually give a damn about where that support comes from.

If we're all in the same boat, let those that are doing the riding start paddling. You lefties constantly talk about equality until it comes time for those who haven't been providing up to the same level to start doing so.

They want equality of outcome with no proportionality between contribution to society and reward from society.

They're not interested in how they can be part of society just what they can get from the productive within society.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Adolescent parasites will undoubtably be fascinated.

Its all so new and revelatory....

 

[DonaldFG]

If we're all in the same boat, let those that are doing the riding start paddling. You lefties constantly talk about equality until it comes time for those who haven't been providing up to the same level to start doing so.

How do you expect those below the economic water level to provide the same support as those who still have a boat? I am not referring to the Earth in this case.

 

[DonaldFG]

I've been successful following the personal responsibility system I practice. Why would I get out of something that has provided great success for me?

That's the problem with many people who are doing well. They don't care about anyone else. Hey, we are all in the same boat; it's called Earth.

Yet you think those who you expect us to support actually give a damn about where that support comes from.

If we're all in the same boat, let those that are doing the riding start paddling. You lefties constantly talk about equality until it comes time for those who haven't been providing up to the same level to start doing so.

They want equality of outcome with no proportionality between contribution to society and reward from society.

Oh, that's a gem! If only the rich DID contribute proportionately to society - we would all cheer!

 

[DonaldFG]

If we don't work for the common good, we are working for the common destruction. Unfortunately, capitalism has done mostly the latter. We all need to get on-board the common good train if we want to survive for the long term.

So your argument is that capitalism, the economic system which has lifted more human beings out of substance level poverty than any other economic system in the recorded history of mankind has mostly resulted in the "common destruction"? Have you taken a look at the history of the alternatives to capitalism? What economic system(s) in your opinion has created more broad based prosperity than capitalism?

Capitalism was not the reason for American prosperity. It was a consequence of the rich resources here.

Capitalism has been raping the land here and abroad with little compensation to indigenous peoples for the land they occupied in the first place. And that includes insufficient compensation to the employees of these companies.

 

[Political Junky]

National Democratic Socialism=Nazism.
Sanders is in favor of Nazism without its xenophobic elements.

"Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."

--Adolf Hitler, Sunday Express, 28 September 1930; cited. in The Rise of Fascism by F.L. Carsten, p. 137

 

[NightFox]

Capitalism was not the reason for American prosperity. It was a consequence of the rich resources here.

I see, so your thesis is that capitalism has nothing to do with the fact that the United States is the richest nation in history? The Soviet Union was VERY rich in resources, arguably richer in resources than the United States and with a much greater land area and a larger population how come the U.S.S.R produced no where near the wealth and prosperity that the United States did over the same period? Why did the U.S.S.R collapse economically while the United States continued to prosper?

Capitalism has been raping the land here and abroad with little compensation to indigenous peoples for the land they occupied in the first place. And that includes insufficient compensation to the employees of these companies.

You seem to think that Capitalism is the exclusive domain of the United States (hint: it isn't) everywhere around the globe where indigenous peoples got "raped" you'll find that they had a unscrupulous government that was part and parcel to said raping, that has nothing to do with capitalism since capitalism is based on voluntary exchange not organized theft.

Finally you forgot to answer my question, to whit:

What economic system(s) in your opinion has created more broad based prosperity than capitalism?

 

[Mac1958]

Capitalism was not the reason for American prosperity. It was a consequence of the rich resources here.

I see, so your thesis is that capitalism has nothing to do with the fact that the United States is the richest nation in history? The Soviet Union was VERY rich in resources, arguably richer in resources than the United States and with a much greater land area and a larger population how come the U.S.S.R produced no where near the wealth and prosperity that the United States did over the same period? Why did the U.S.S.R collapse economically while the United States continued to prosper?

Capitalism has been raping the land here and abroad with little compensation to indigenous peoples for the land they occupied in the first place. And that includes insufficient compensation to the employees of these companies.

You seem to think that Capitalism is the exclusive domain of the United States (hint: it isn't) everywhere around the globe where indigenous peoples got "raped" you'll find that they had a unscrupulous government that was part and parcel to said raping, that has nothing to do with capitalism since capitalism is based on voluntary exchange not organized theft.

Finally you forgot to answer my question, to whit:

What economic system(s) in your opinion has created more broad based prosperity than capitalism?

 

[Conservative65]

I've been successful following the personal responsibility system I practice. Why would I get out of something that has provided great success for me?

That's the problem with many people who are doing well. They don't care about anyone else. Hey, we are all in the same boat; it's called Earth.

Yet you think those who you expect us to support actually give a damn about where that support comes from.

If we're all in the same boat, let those that are doing the riding start paddling. You lefties constantly talk about equality until it comes time for those who haven't been providing up to the same level to start doing so.

They want equality of outcome with no proportionality between contribution to society and reward from society.

Oh, that's a gem! If only the rich DID contribute proportionately to society - we would all cheer!

And the welfare leech drawing from the pot funded by those contributing to society while putting nothing into that pot is contributing proportionately?

 

[Conservative65]

If we don't work for the common good, we are working for the common destruction. Unfortunately, capitalism has done mostly the latter. We all need to get on-board the common good train if we want to survive for the long term.

So your argument is that capitalism, the economic system which has lifted more human beings out of substance level poverty than any other economic system in the recorded history of mankind has mostly resulted in the "common destruction"? Have you taken a look at the history of the alternatives to capitalism? What economic system(s) in your opinion has created more broad based prosperity than capitalism?

Capitalism was not the reason for American prosperity. It was a consequence of the rich resources here.

Capitalism has been raping the land here and abroad with little compensation to indigenous peoples for the land they occupied in the first place. And that includes insufficient compensation to the employees of these companies.

Are you claiming socialism is the reason?

 

[Conservative65]

If we're all in the same boat, let those that are doing the riding start paddling. You lefties constantly talk about equality until it comes time for those who haven't been providing up to the same level to start doing so.

How do you expect those below the economic water level to provide the same support as those who still have a boat? I am not referring to the Earth in this case.

They provide no type of support while drawing from the support forced from those of us who actually do contribute. They draw from a pot to which they don't contribute then raise hell when those who are constantly forced to provide more say enough is enough.

 

[Correll]

I've been successful following the personal responsibility system I practice. Why would I get out of something that has provided great success for me?

That's the problem with many people who are doing well. They don't care about anyone else. Hey, we are all in the same boat; it's called Earth.

Yet you think those who you expect us to support actually give a damn about where that support comes from.

If we're all in the same boat, let those that are doing the riding start paddling. You lefties constantly talk about equality until it comes time for those who haven't been providing up to the same level to start doing so.

They want equality of outcome with no proportionality between contribution to society and reward from society.

Oh, that's a gem! If only the rich DID contribute proportionately to society - we would all cheer!

The rich pay a lot more taxes than the poor.

The middle class do most of the work.

Yet, all we hear about are how we need to do more about the poor, who contribute the least.


NO proportionality.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

He does try here: What is a democratic socialist? Bernie Sanders tries to redefine the name.

“What democratic socialism means to me,” Sanders said during a recent speech in New Hampshire, “is having a government which represents all people, rather than just the wealthiest people, which is most often the case right now in this country.”

Somebody needs to ask Bernie what the hell this has to do with socialism in the first place because it would appear that he doesn't understand what socialism really is (common ownership of the means of production and production for use), he is just changing the definition of the word to suit his political needs, the definition he outlines here is so broad and excludes the economic specifics of what is generally understood as socialism that it is essentially meaningless.

Things get redefined over time as people and their ideas change. NOTHING is carved in stone, except the Ten Commandments for some people.

Here we are talking about "social policies" that promote the common good. That is the core meaning. If we don't work for the common good, we are working for the common destruction. Unfortunately, capitalism has done mostly the latter. We all need to get on-board the common good train if we want to survive for the long term.

He does try here: What is a democratic socialist? Bernie Sanders tries to redefine the name.

“What democratic socialism means to me,” Sanders said during a recent speech in New Hampshire, “is having a government which represents all people, rather than just the wealthiest people, which is most often the case right now in this country.”

Somebody needs to ask Bernie what the hell this has to do with socialism in the first place because it would appear that he doesn't understand what socialism really is (common ownership of the means of production and production for use), he is just changing the definition of the word to suit his political needs, the definition he outlines here is so broad and excludes the economic specifics of what is generally understood as socialism that it is essentially meaningless.

Things get redefined over time as people and their ideas change. NOTHING is carved in stone, except the Ten Commandments for some people.

Here we are talking about "social policies" that promote the common good. That is the core meaning. If we don't work for the common good, we are working for the common destruction. Unfortunately, capitalism has done mostly the latter. We all need to get on-board the common good train if we want to survive for the long term.

Yep ... Lets leave it up to some tyrannical, clueless civil servants to decide what the common good is, who should provide the burden of it, and whom the chosen beneficiaries will be...its for the people comrades !!!!

 

[LogikAndReazon]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need..."

F---ing clueless commie/progressives

 

[DonaldFG]

Capitalism was not the reason for American prosperity. It was a consequence of the rich resources here.

I see, so your thesis is that capitalism has nothing to do with the fact that the United States is the richest nation in history? The Soviet Union was VERY rich in resources, arguably richer in resources than the United States and with a much greater land area and a larger population how come the U.S.S.R produced no where near the wealth and prosperity that the United States did over the same period? Why did the U.S.S.R collapse economically while the United States continued to prosper?

Capitalism has been raping the land here and abroad with little compensation to indigenous peoples for the land they occupied in the first place. And that includes insufficient compensation to the employees of these companies.

You seem to think that Capitalism is the exclusive domain of the United States (hint: it isn't) everywhere around the globe where indigenous peoples got "raped" you'll find that they had a unscrupulous government that was part and parcel to said raping, that has nothing to do with capitalism since capitalism is based on voluntary exchange not organized theft.

Finally you forgot to answer my question, to whit:

What economic system(s) in your opinion has created more broad based prosperity than capitalism?

Actually, capitalism can be a good system. But the free market type has been a dismal failure. So, the American brand of capitalism has had its moments, but it has not served society for the general good. It appears to me that the nations blending socialist policies with capitalism are doing the best for their people.

We need an economic system that responds to human needs much more efficiently, especially with resources.

 

[Indeependent]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need..."

F---ing clueless commie/progressives

Of course you realize that Communism is one of the three phases of Marx's Theory.
Marx was explaining how extremes result in the next phase.

 

[DonaldFG]

Capitalism was not the reason for American prosperity. It was a consequence of the rich resources here.

I see, so your thesis is that capitalism has nothing to do with the fact that the United States is the richest nation in history? The Soviet Union was VERY rich in resources, arguably richer in resources than the United States and with a much greater land area and a larger population how come the U.S.S.R produced no where near the wealth and prosperity that the United States did over the same period? Why did the U.S.S.R collapse economically while the United States continued to prosper?

Capitalism has been raping the land here and abroad with little compensation to indigenous peoples for the land they occupied in the first place. And that includes insufficient compensation to the employees of these companies.

You seem to think that Capitalism is the exclusive domain of the United States (hint: it isn't) everywhere around the globe where indigenous peoples got "raped" you'll find that they had a unscrupulous government that was part and parcel to said raping, that has nothing to do with capitalism since capitalism is based on voluntary exchange not organized theft.

Finally you forgot to answer my question, to whit:

What economic system(s) in your opinion has created more broad based prosperity than capitalism?

Also, USSR had a tyrannical government.

About the organized theft issue, you need to read John Perkins book. It is really enlightening!

 

[wihosa]

Democratic socialism is simply socialistic programs set up and administered through the democratic process. Socialistic programs being those that are paid for collectively though our taxes.

Not really something to get so worked up over

 

[Vigilante]